A  STUDY  IN 

SOCIALISM 


BI>DBR 


IICSB  LIBRARY 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 


BY 

BENEDICT  ELDER 


ST.  LOUIS,  MO.,  1915 

PUBLISHED  BY  B.  HERDER 

17  SOUTH  BROADWAY 


FREIBURG  (BADEN) 
GERMANY 


68,  GREAT  RUSSELL  STR. 
LONDON,  W.  C. 


NIHIL  OBSTAT 
Sti.  Ludovici,  die  29.  Sept.  1915. 


F.  G.  Holweck, 

Censor  Librorutn. 


IMPRIMATUR 

Sti.  Ludovici,  die  i.  Oct.  1915. 

^•Joannes  J.  Glennon, 
Archiepiscopus, 

Sti.  Ludovici. 


Copyright,  1915, 

by 
Joseph  Gummersbach 


All  rights  reserved 
Printed  in  U.  S.  A. 


INTRODUCTION 

I.     SOCIALISM 

What  is  Socialism? 

"  I  know  if  you  do  not  ask  me,"  said  St.  Augustine, 
when  asked:  What  is  Time?  Most  of  us  feel  that  we 
know  what  Socialism  is  until  we  begin  to  define  it.  It 
may  be  called  a  modern  social  phenomenon.  It  springs 
from  modern  industrial  conditions  as  they  are  combined 
with  the  more  modern  phases  of  sentiment  and  thought. 
A  more  particular  definition  would  only  invite  criticism 
and  dispute.  Socialists  themselves  are  not  agreed  on  a 
definition.  One  says  it  is  a  religious  movement,1  another 
a  moral  movement,2  another,  a  humanitarian  movement.3 
In  the  Communist  Manifesto  it  is  termed  a  "  proletarian 
movement,"  in  the  Chicago  platform,  a  "  purely  economic 
movement,"  in  the  Gotha  and  Erfurt  Programs  and  other 
official  utterances  in  Europe  and  America,  a  revolutionary 
movement,  a  political  movement,  a  working-class  move- 
ment, a  movement  for  the  abolition  of  classes,  for  better 
working  conditions,  for  social  justice,  for  the  emancipa- 
tion of  labor,  etc.,  etc. 

Then  again,  Socialism  is  defined  to  be  not  a  movement 
but  a  principle,4  and  again  not  merely  a  principle  but  a 
science.5  Frederick  Engels  says  that  it  is  a  "  complete 

1  Socialism  and  Primitive  Christianity,  Brown,  4. 

2  Geo.  D.  Herron,  Metropolitan,  August,  1913.      . 

3  The  Passing  of  Capitalism,  Ladoff,  53. 

4  The  Substance  of  Socialism,  Spargo,  84. 

5  Ladoff,  op.  cit.,  39. 

iii 


iv  INTRODUCTION 

system  of  philosophy,  mental,  moral,  natural  and  his- 
torical." 6  Another  says  it  is  a  "  complete  system  of 
thought  with  regard  to  human  society  and  social  prog- 
ress." 7  Untermann  says  briefly  that  it  is  a  "  general  key 
for  the  solution  of  all  the  riddles  of  the  universe."  8  It  is 
doubtless  in  contemplation  of  this  illimitable  character  of 
Socialism  that  Ladoff  exclaims :  "  To  be  a  true  Socialist 
is  the  highest  distinction  a  man  can  attain  on  earth." 

In  the  book,  What  Is  Socialism,  written  by  R.  G. 
Kauffman,  one  rightly  expects  to  find  a  fairly  adequate 
definition.  But  after  devoting  some  fifteen  thousand 
words  to  the  task  of  showing  that  Socialism  is  a  kind  of 
political  economy,  calculated  especially  to  benefit  the 
working  class,  the  writer  opens  his  third  chapter  by  say- 
ing :  "  I  have  said  that  Socialism,  though  expressing 
itself  politically,  is  an  economic  force.  Do  not  suppose, 
however,  that  the  dyed-in-the-wool  Socialist  stops  there. 
He  has  not  been  content  until  he  has  sought  to  discover 
a  reason  for  his  being,  he  has  reconstructed  his  entire 
cosmos  and  the  net  consequence  is  a  philosophy  that  em- 
braces the  whole  body  of  art  and  morality, —  embraces, 
indeed,  all  history  and  all  life."  "  It  may  be  convenient 
for  Socialists,"  says  E.  Belfort  Bax,  "  with  a  view  to  elec- 
tion expediency,  to  seek  to  confine  the  definition  of 
Socialism  to  the  economic  issue.  But  the  attempt  to  limit 
the  term  Socialism  within  the  four  walls  of  an  economic 
definition  is  in  the  long  run  futile."  9 

6  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,  10. 

7  Industrial  Socialism,  Haywood  and  Bohn,  55. 

8  Science  and  Revolution,  127. 

9  Essays  in  Socialism,  quoted  by  Kauffman,  op.  cit.,  64.    Cf. 
also,  Ladoff,  op.  cit.,  39;  The  Socialist  Movement,  Vail,  2. 


INTRODUCTION  v 

But,  whether  it  is  the  result  of  misapprehension,  or  of 
tactical  design,  there  is  in  Socialist  propaganda  a  great 
number  of  definitions  that  plainly  show  an  effort  to  con- 
fine the  term  Socialism  "  within  the  four  walls  of  an  eco- 
nomic." Deville  says :  "  Socialism  is  the  theoretical 
expression  of  the  contemporaneous  phase  of  the  economic 
evolution  of  humanity." 10  Another  Socialist  says : 
"  Socialism  is  not  a  consequence  of  dreams  any  more  than 
a  certain  type  of  plant.  It  is  a  product  of  economic  evo- 
lution, a  child  of  economic  necessity."  "  "  Socialism," 
says  another,  "  is  naught  but  Darwinism  economised, 
made  definite,  applied  to  the  economic  conditions  of 
human  society."  12  Edward  Bernstein  defines  Socialism 
as  "  the  movement  toward,  or  the  actual  existence  of,  the 
co-operative  organization  of  society."  1S  Gaylord  Wilt- 
shire says,  "  It  is  the  governmental  ownership  and 
management  of  capital  and  the  co-operative  distribution 
of  the  product  of  the  workers."  14  Morris  Hillquit  says 
it  is  "  summed  up  "  in  the  program  that  "  requires  the 
public  or  collective  ownership  and  operation  of  the  princi- 
pal instruments  and  agencies  for  the  production  and  dis- 
tribution of  wealth,"  and  he  adds :  "  Whoever  accepts 
this  program  is  a  Socialist,  whoever  does  not,  is  not." 
Finally,  there  is  one  definition  that  may  be  found  generally 
set  out  in  Socialist  propaganda :  "  Socialism  is  the 
socialization  of  the  means  of  production,  distribution, 
and  exchange." 

10  Socialism,  Revolution  and  Internationalism,  3. 

11  Industrial  Problems,  Richardson,  225. 

12  Preface  to  Socialism  and  Positive  Science,  MacDonald. 

13  Quoted  by  Cathrein,  Socialism,  Eng.  trans.,  19. 
i*  Why  a  Woman  Should  be  a  Socialist,  17. 


vi  INTRODUCTION 

An  English  critic  of  Socialism  says :  "  Socialists  are 
agreed  on  one  proposition  and  only  one.  They  are  all 
united  in  asserting  that  the  '  socialization  of  the  means  of 
production,  distribution  and  exchange '  would  provide  a 
universal  panacea  for  the  ills  of  society."  15  But  they 
are  not  agreed  on  the  meaning  of  this  definition;  they 
differ  as  to  what  socialization  is  and  they  differ  as  to  the 
means  that  are  to  be  socialized.  "  Their  unity,"  says 
De  Tunzleman,  "  resembles  the  unity  existing  among 
quacks  who  advertise  pills  that  cure  all  ills.  They  are 
agreed  that  pills  will  cure  all  ills,  but  each  maintains  that 
they  must  be  his  own  pills." 

We  have  said  that  Socialism  is  a  modern  social  phe- 
nomenon ;  but  what  are  its  principles  ?  what  is  its  history  ? 
and  what  are  its  aims  ?  The  three  divisions  of  this  book 
are  devoted  to  answering  these  questions.  The  "  Prin- 
ciples "  of  Socialism  are  considered  first.  They  are  set 
out  in  the  language  of  Socialists,  taken  first  hand  from 
the  writings  of  acclaimed  leaders  and  teachers  of  Social- 
ism in  this  and  other  countries.16  They  are  subjected  to 
the  light  of  reason  and  of  truth :  of  reason  admitting  first 
principles ;  of  truth  in  its  own  objectivity.  There  is  such 
truth:  science,  religion,  morals  is  rooted  in  such  truth; 
human  life  in  all  its  bearings  comes  in  contact  with  it 
constantly,  and  only  by  its  conscious  or  unconscious  recog- 
nition is  man  more  than  an  automaton.  If  it  seems  a 
reflection  upon  the  intelligence  of  almost  every  one  to 
call  attention  to  truths  that  are  axiomatic,  there  is  a  rea- 

15  The  Superstition  Called  Socialism,  De  Tunzleman,  84. 
10  Wherever  quotations  appear  without  a  reference,  they  will 
be  found  quoted  elsewhere  in  this  study  with  proper  references. 


INTRODUCTION  vii 

son:  Socialist  fundamentals  contradict  them;  and  So- 
cialism is  accepted  by  many  sincere  people.  So  if  this 
study  is  to  serve  any  purpose  as  an  antidote  for  Socialist 
teaching,  it  must  bring  before  the  mind  those  first  truths 
whose  neglect  caused  that  teaching  to  be  accepted.  In 
the  book,  Outcome  of  Philosophy,  by  J.  Dietzgen,  it  is 
said :  "  The  universe  is  an  organism  and  the  infinite 
cause  and  effect  of  everything,  including  itself."  17  Marx 
used  to  refer  to  Dietzgen  as  "  our  philosopher."  Of 
course,  to  think  of  anything  as  being  the  cause  of  itself, 
or  the  effect  of  itself,  or  both  the  cause  and  the  effect  of 
anything,  is  to  think  in  contradictory  terms.  In  a  paper 
communicated  to  the  Socialist  International  Congress  of 
1865,  Marx  wrote :  "  We  begin  by  saying  that  the  value 
of  labor  determines  the  value  of  commodities  and  we  wind 
up  by  saying  that  the  value  of  commodities  determines 
the  value  of  labor.  Here  we  come  to  a  standstill.  Of 
course,  to  a  standstill  if  we  try  to  reason  logically."  He 
said  again,  that  his  "  explanation  of  the  source  of  profits 
is  a  paradox  and  contrary  to  everyday  observation  and 
experience."  Yet,  he  did  not  hesitate,  nor  do  his  follow- 
ers hesitate,  to  claim  that  his  teachings  are  the  last  word 
in  economic  science,  or  in  all  science  for  that  matter. 
These  examples  of  the  way  in  which  Socialists  disregard 
the  fundamental  laws  of  right  thinking  seem  sufficient 
warrant  for  a  study  of  Socialism  to  call  attention  to  truths 
the  acceptance  of  which  is  indispensable  to  the  integrity 
of  every  teaching. 

17  Cf.  Revolution  a  Science,  Untermann,  151,  where  it  is  said 
that  Dietzgen  "demonstrated"  the  absurd  statement  quoted  and 
by  that  means  "perfected  his  materialistic  monism." 


viii  INTRODUCTION 

II.    SOCIALISTS 

Having  shown  by  a  first-hand  study  of  its  "  Prin- 
ciples "  what  Socialism  stands  for,  we  next  proceed  to 
show  what  Socialists  as  a  class  have  done.  We  present  a 
panoramic  view  of  the  "  History  of  Socialism,"  which 
includes  a  brief  sketch  of  the  development  of  the  Idea, 
the  Sentiment,  and  the  Movement.  The  facts  detailed 
are  necessarily  meagre  and  the  outline  must  be  incom- 
plete in  many  respects.  The  Idea  drawn  out  is  not  com- 
mon to  all  Socialists  without  exception,  and,  hence,  will 
draw  the  fire  of  some  of  them.  This  is  true  with  respect 
to  the  Sentiment,  also.  And  likewise  as  to  the  Move- 
ment. There  are  as  many  kinds  of  Socialists  as  there  are 
many  kinds  of  Socialism.  There  is  the  "  cross-barred  " 
Socialist,  who  is  either  in  prison  for  committing  a  crime 
or  is  trying  to  break  in  by  committing  one;  there  is 
Ladoff's  "  Socialist-pure-and-simple,"  who  claims  he  has 
nothing  to  do  with  religion  or  morals  or  the  family ;  there 
is  Kauffman's  "  dyed-in-the-wool "  Socialist,  who  recon- 
structs his  entire  cosmos  and  all  history  and  all  life  in 
the  terms  of  Socialism.  M.  Hillquit  sets  out  a  program 
that  requires  public  ownership  of  the  means  for  producing 
wealth  and  says :  "  Whoever  accepts  this  program  is  a 
Socialist ;  whoever  does  not,  is  not."  The  Socialist  Party 
of  the  United  States  sets  out  another  program,  which 
requires  "a  new  world  out  of  the  old,"  where  every- 
thing will  be  changed,  "the  boots  on  people's  feet,  the 
clothing  they  wear,  the  houses  they  inhabit,  the  work  they 
do,  the  education  they  get,  their  places,  their  honors  and 
all  their  possessions  .  .  .  will  have  to  undergo  as  com- 
plete a  change  as  a  caterpillar  does  when  it  becomes  a 


INTRODUCTION  ix 

moth,"  and  it  says :  "  Unless  you  demand  all  this,  unless 
you  are  prepared  to  fight  for  all  this,  you  are  not  really 
a  Socialist."  x 

There  is  no  unfailing  test  of  Socialist  adherence. 
Many  believe  in  government  ownership  of  certain  in- 
dustries, and  some  say  they  are  Socialists,  but  the  So- 
cialist platform  adopted  at  Rochester  anxiously  "  warned 
the  people  against  all  public-ownership  movements  as  an 
attempt  of  the  capitalist  class  to  secure  governmental 
control  of  public  utilities  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
greater  security  in  the  exploitation  of  other  industries." 
Many  believe  that  modern  industrial  conditions  call  for 
shorter  hours,  higher  wages,  and  better  working  condi- 
tions for  laborers,  and  some  say  these  are  Socialists ;  but 
these  reforms  were  agitated  long  before  Socialism  was 
known.  The  Craft  Guilds  of  the  Middle  Ages  were 
both  zealous  and  efficient  in  promoting  the  welfare  of 
the  working  classes.  And  long  before  the  existence  of 
the  guilds  there  were  unions  active  in  the  interests  of 
the  workers.2  After  the  guilds  had  broken  up,  better 
hours,  wages  and  working  conditions  continued  to  be 
agitated,  and  it  is  this  agitation,  expanded  and  grown, 
and  not  Socialism,  that  has  brought  about  the  labor 
legislation  existing  in  various  countries.  Socialists,  as 
a  class,  have  contributed  nothing  to  this  legislation.  In 
fact,  where  they  have  been  in  a  position  to  take  part  in 

1  Socialist  Campaign  Book,  1908,  compiled  under  the  direction 
of  the   National   Executive   Committee  of  the   Socialist   Party 
(U.  S.),  26,  27. 

2  Cf .  M.  Davidson's  Annals  of  Toil,  6,  where  he  mentions  the 
discovery  in  the  ruins  of  Pompeii  of  a  placard  announcing  the 
nomination  for  public  office  of  a  member  of  a  union. 


x  INTRODUCTION 

the  matter,  they  have  opposed  all  measures  looking  to 
reform,  because  "  Socialism  is  not  a  reform,  but  a  revo- 
lution " ;  "  it  is  not  a  remedy  for  the  existing  ills  of 
society  but  a  program  for  a  new  society."  It  is  So- 
cialist  teaching  that  "  no  wage  can  ever  be  a  just  reward 
for  a  day's  work," 3  that  a  general  increase  of  wages 
is  a  detriment  instead  of  a  benefit  to  wage  earners  be- 
cause "  the  power  of  the  capitalist  class  over  labor  is 
increased,  the  social  position  of  the  laborer  is  deterio- 
rated " ;  therefore,  "  the  cry  for  a  fair  wage  is  an  in- 
sane wish  never  to  be  fulfilled."  And  it  is  a  Socialist 
tactic  in  most  countries,  though  being  only  a  tactic  it 
does  not  obtain  in  all  alike,  that  all  reforms  looking  to- 
ward the  betterment  of  the  working  man  are  to  be  voted 
down  on  the  theory  that  they  merely  make  the  work- 
ing classes  more  contented  and  thereby  postpone  the 
day  when  they  will  join  in  the  Great  Revolution.  It 
is  true,  in  the  platforms  of  the  Socialist  parties  there 
appear  demands  for  certain  reforms  that  would  benefit 
the  workers,  but  in  all  of  those  platforms,  immediately 
following  these  demands,  is  the  announcement :  "  Such 
measures  of  relief  as  we  may  be  able  to  force  from 
capitalism,  are  but  a  preparation  of  the  workers  to  seize 
the  whole  powers  of  government  that  they  may  lay  hold 
of  the  entire  system  of  industry  and  thus  come  into  their 
rightful  inheritance." 

Some  Socialists  claim  that  the  workers  are  entitled 
to  the  entire  product  of  labor.  Indeed,  an  official  decla- 
ration of  American  Socialists  is  that  they  "  propose  to 
place  the  workers  in  possession  of  all  they  produce." 
Other  Socialists  say  that  before  the  workers  are  paid 

3  Industrial  Problems,  Richardson,  31. 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

anything,  there  must  be  deducted  "  a  portion  to  take 
the  place  of  taxes,  a  portion  to  replace  the  labor  con- 
sumed, one  to  extend  the  scale  of  production,  one  to 
insure  against  disasters,  one  to  support  the  incapables, 
one  for  administration,  one  for  sanitation,  one  for  edu- 
cation, etc." 4  Then  there  are  State  Socialists,  like 
Wells,  Hillquit,  and  Spargo,  who  imagine  there  will  be 
government  and  law  and  all  the  paraphernalia  of  State 
when  Socialism  is  ushered  in ;  and  there  are  others,  like 
Blatchford,  who  says :  "  No  man  who  understands  lib- 
erty, equality,  fraternity,  could  live  under  State  Socialism. 
It  would  be  hell."  There  are  "  Christian  "  Socialists,  who 
teach  that  Christ  was  the  first  Socialist;  and  there  are 
others,  who  say  He  was  a  vagabond.  And  there  are 
"  Parlor  "  Socialists  and  "  Revisionists  "  and  "  Oppor- 
tunists "  and  "  Impossibilists,"  and  so  forth. 

This  book,  in  the  main,  treats  of  Scientific  Socialists, 
of  their  teaching,  their  history  and  their  proposals. 
From  their  teaching  we  learn  what  Socialism  is ;  from 
their  history,  what  Socialists  have  done ;  and  their  teach- 
ing and  their  history  combine  to  throw  a  true  light  upon 
what  they  propose  to  do.  Their  history  must  be  con- 
sidered in  the  light  of  human  nature,  which  does  not 
change.  Socialists  are  used  to  regard  human  nature  as 
changeable.  "  Is  it  possible  to  change  human  nature  ?  " 
asks  Ladoff,  who  recognizes  that,  unless  it  is  changed, 
"  history  will  repeat  itself,"  and  Socialists  in  the  future, 
as  they  have  in  the  past,  will  do  nothing  but  stir  up  dis- 
content and  produce  nothing  but  lawlessness  and  crime; 
and  Ladoff  answers  himself:  "This  objection  is  by  no 
means  new.  The  man-eater  certainly  [  ?]  did  object  in 

4  Socialism,  Revolution  and  Internationalism,  Deville,  33. 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

the  same  way  to  the  reformers  who  suggested  that  en- 
slaving prisoners  would  be  preferable  to  eating  them ; " 
and  he  adds  the  statement  that  he  will  not  further  an- 
swer the  question  "  because  it  would  be  too  tedious."  5 

But  if  human  nature  were  not  unchangeable,  Social- 
ism would  surely  effect  a  noticeable  change  in  it.  Are 
Socialists  less  human  than  are  others?  Have  they  no 
selfishness,  envy,  greed,  inordinate  ambition?  Do  har- 
mony, peace,  and  good  will  everywhere  rule  among  them  ? 
Are  they  distinguished  for  their  works  of  charity,  their 
deeds  of  mercy  or  justice,  their  honesty  and  good  moral 
character?  Do  they  excel  in  loyalty,  love  for  law,  re- 
spect for  authority,  in  purity,  integrity,  and  nobility 
of  life  and  conduct?  It  is  written:  "By  their  fruits 
ye  shall  know  them."  What  have  the  Socialists  done? 
How  many  hospitals  have  they  built?  how  many  schools 
endowed?  how  many  orphans'  homes  established?  how 
many  asylums  for  the  afflicted?  If  we  were  treating  of 
an  ordinary  political  organization,  such  questions  would 
be  captious  rather  than  critical.  But  when  it  is  claimed 
that  Socialism  is  a  complete  system  of  philosophy  in  its 
every  phase, — "broad  as  humanity  and  deep  as  the 
mystery  of  life," — "  a  key  for  the  solution  of  all  the 
riddles  of  the  universe," — "  the  only  proposition  for  so- 
cial order  ever  presented  to  the  world," — when  it  is 
claimed  that  this  complete  system  of  thought  which  em- 
braces the  entire  cosmos  and  all  history  and  all  life,  "  is 
taught  in  more  than  sixty  languages  and  accepted  by  more 
than  thirty  million  persons," —  it  is  pertinent  to  ask  what 
have  Socialists  as  a  class  done  during  the  more  than  sixty 
years  since  their  movement  took  definite  form? 

5  Passing  of  Capitalism,  6. 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

III.      SOCIALISDOM 

In  a  series  of  debative  letters  exchanged  some  years 
ago  between  Robt.  Rives  La  Monte,  "  Scientific  Social- 
ist," and  H.  L.  Mencken,  "  Nietzschean  Individualist," 
which  have  since  been  published  under  the  title  Men 
vs.  The  Man,  La  Monte  criticises  his  opponent  for 
using  the  expression  "  Under  Socialism  "  in  referring  to 
a  supposed  society  where  Socialism  is  established.  "  So- 
cialism is  not  an  umbrella  or  an  awning,"  says  La  Monte. 
This  is  mentioned  by  way  of  accounting  for  the  use  in 
this  work  of  a  word  of  our  own  making, — Socialisdom, 
which  is  used  in  the  sense  of  the  society  wherein  So- 
cialism must  cease  to  be  mere  theory  and  be  put  into 
actual  practice. 

If  the  principles  of  Socialism  must  be  made  to  har- 
monize with  reason  and  truth,  and  its  history  must  be 
judged  in  the  light  of  human  nature,  with  equal  necessity 
its  aims  must  be  subjected  to  the  test  of  practicability. 
It  is  a  common  objection  that  Socialism  is  impossible. 
This  applies  in  particular  to  its  basic  proposals.  They 
are  not  impossible  in  the  absolute  sense  of  the  term,  per- 
haps, but  they  are  practically  impossible.  Instead  of 
using  the  word  impossible  in  this  connection,  the  more 
precise  critic  says  impracticable.  To  this  the  Socialists 
retort  that  the  same  thing  was  said  about  nearly  all  mod- 
ern improvements,  that  it  is  the  stock-in-trade  objection 
of  the  reactionary  and  was  urged  against  popular  govern- 
ment, universal  education,  steam  and  electric  appliances, 
transcontinental  railroads,  irrigation  and  reclamation 
projects  in  the  great  West,  and  so  forth,  and  that  it  is 
entitled  to  no  more  weight  when  urged  against  Socialism 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

than  it  was  when  urged  against  these  and  other  ventures 
that  are  now  achievements.  But  there  is  a  difference. 
It  is  the  Socialist  proposals  themselves,  and  not  the 
means  for  applying  them,  that  are  impracticable.  They 
are  contrary  to  reason,  to  truth,  to  human  experience. 
They  are  contrary  to  nature  and  the  laws  of  nature. 
They  are  contrary  to  each  other.  Hence,  they  are  not 
merely  impractical,  they  are  impracticable.  It  is  not  that 
they  would  be  difficult,  tedious,  trying,  expensive,  tyran- 
nical, unjust,  in  their  operation;  —  they  cannot  be  put 
into  operation.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  those  who  are 
careful  to  say  only  that  Socialism  is  impracticable,  and 
such  is  the  meaning  generally  intended  in  this  study  when 
it  is  said  to  be  impossible.  The  latter  term  is  here  em- 
ployed because  in  its  popular  acceptation  the  term  im- 
practicable does  not  convey  the  meaning  intended,  and 
to  the  popular  mind,  which  is  not  exactly  critical,  that 
meaning  can  be  conveyed  only  by  use  of  the  term  im- 
possible. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind,  however,  that  we  are  treat- 
ing of  only  the  essential  aims  of  Socialism,  such  as  the 
"  abolition  of  the  State,  the  atrophy  of  religion,  the  meta- 
morphosis of  the  family,  the  destruction  of  property," 
and  the  erection  upon  the  ruin  thus  made  of  a  society 
where  "  idleness  or  selfishness  or  sin  will  be  unknown," 
where  "  all  will  have  plenty  and  be  content  and  the  sweet 
spirit  of  Comradeship  will  blossom  forth  like  the  fabled 
rose  of  unchanging  beauty."  With  the  demands  Social- 
ists set  out  in  their  platform  "  as  measures  calculated 
to  strengthen  the  working  class  in  its  fight  for  the  real- 
ization of  its  ultimate  aim,"  such  as  ownership  of  public 
utilities,  conservation  of  natural  resources,  industrial  in- 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

surance,  old-age  pensions,  equal  suffrage,  initiative, 
referendum  and  recall,  this  study  is  not  concerned.  They 
are  no  part  of  Scientific  Socialism.  Not  only  are  they 
extraneous  to  Socialism,  they  are  inconsistent  with  it, 
and  while  in  civilization  they  are  for  the  most  part  prac- 
ticable and  even  practical,  not  to  say  judicious,  they 
would  not  be  possible  in  Socialisdom.  This  fact  must 
not  be  overlooked.  Those  who  take  up  Socialism  must 
abandon  Civilization.  Those  who  desire  the  advent  of 
Socialisdom  must  be  willing  to  give  up  Civilization. 
There  is  no  way  to  combine  the  two.  There  is  no  look- 
ing back  for  the  Scientific  Socialist,  who  is  the  only  So- 
cialist worthy  of  the  name. 

Ibsen  wrote  a  play  called  The  Doll's  House.  In  it  he 
describes  Nora  as  growing  tired  of  her  husband  and  his 
home  and  his  people,  and  as  leaving  them  "  without 
taking  anything,  and  without  sending  back."  She  broke 
completely  with  the  old  life  and  thenceforth  "  took  noth- 
ing from  strangers,"  as  all  in  the  old  life  were  consid- 
ered to  be.  This  is  Ibsen's  strong  point.  Nora  was 
happy  because  her  life  was  new  out  and  out.  In  Social- 
ism, Positive  and  Negative,  La  Monte  seizes  on  Nora's 
act  to  illustrate  his  estimate  of  a  Socialist,  who,  like 
Nora,  if  he  would  be  content,  can  take  nothing,  not  even 
jewels  from  strangers,  but  must  break  entirely  with  civil- 
ization and  center  all  his  hopes,  all  his  aspirations,  all 
his  ideals  in  Socialism.  The  casual  reader  of  Socialist 
literature  is  apt  to  miss  this  point  because  all  Socialists 
are  not  so  frank  as  La  Monte,  who  does  not  hesitate  to 
head  a  chapter  of  his  book  "  The  Nihilism  of  Socialism," 
nor  to  write  up  to  the  mark  suggested.  One  cannot  be 
too  wary  of  Socialist  tactics.  Whether  dealing  with  their 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

principles,  their  history  or  their  aims,  one  will  find  on 
examination  and  comparison  that  the  Socialists  are  past- 
masters  in  the  art  of  thimble-rigging.  The  unvarying 
hue  of  their  dark  fortunes  (except  of  their  leaders  who 
have  capitalized  the  delusions  of  their  "comrades  "  to  be- 
come rich)  has  schooled  them  in  the  ways  of  cleverness 
and  cunning,  and  there  is  scarcely  any  class  of  people 
upon  which  their  fine  play  of  words  and  of  sentiment 
does  not  have  some  effect.  Their  writings  are  both 
varied  and  voluminous,  and  they  make  a  show  of  learn- 
ing that  is  wholly  deceptive.  There  are  few  known  sub- 
jects of  which  they  do  not  treat,  and  there  is  not  one 
they  treat  that  they  do  not  assume  to  say  the  last  word 
about.  Where  scientists  have  doubts,  the  Socialists  are 
certain;  where  statesmen  hesitate,  they  go  ahead;  where 
angels  fear  to  tread,  they  rush  in.  Their  audacity  is  al- 
most beyond  belief.  They  claim  to  be  able  to  solve  '*  all 
the  riddles  of  the  universe"  by  their  philosophy,  and 
when  their  society  comes,  "  there  will  be  nothing  that  the 
human  heart  can  long  for  that  it  will  not  get,  and  noth- 
ing that  the  human  mind  can  conceive  that  it  will  not 
understand." 

Why  do  people  believe  these  extravagant  claims? 
They  do  not  believe  them.  They  are  captured  by  Social- 
ist tactics.  Spargo  writes  his  Bitter  Cry  of  the  Chil- 
dren, and  they  seem  to  hear  the  piteous  wail ;  London 
publishes  his  Iron  Heel,  and  they  seem  to  feel  the  crush- 
ing weight;  Hunter  portrays  the  life  of  misery  in  Pov- 
erty, and  this  picture  stirs  their  deepest  emotions.  Mil- 
lions of  copies  of  these  writings  are  circulated  each 
year,  and  for  the  most  part  are  read  by  people  who  do 
not  know  "  how  the  other  half  of  the  world  lives  "  and 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

who  respond  with  feeling,  or  by  others  who  do  not  care 
what  comes  if  they  can  only  "  get  even  "  with  the  hated 
capitalist ;  they  respond  with  feeling  too,  but  of  a  differ- 
ent kind ;  their  aim  is  to  do  anything  that  will  injure  the 
man  above  them ;  Socialism  promises  "  the  deep  damna- 
tion of  his  taking  off,"  and  therefore,  they  are  Social- 
ists. But  the  feeling  of  the  others,  whose  hearts  are 
touched  by  the  cry  of  suffering,  though  different,  is 
wrought  up  by  the  same  tactic;  they  think  in  the  lurid 
light  of  what  they  read  and  their  aim  to  do  something 
for  suffering  humanity  becomes  desperate  and  they  grow 
indifferent  to  consequences,  imagining  that  the  worst 
cannot  be  worse  than  what  is  pictured  to  them.  They 
do  not  consider  that  for  centuries,  the  best  minds  and 
the  purest  hearts  have  been  devoted  to  bettering  the  con- 
ditions they  deplore,  and  have  been  fairly  successful,  and 
but  for  visionary  ideas  of  the  future  or  pessimistic  ideas 
of  the  present,  they  would  be  more  successful;  they  do 
not  consider  that  the  poor  are  always  with  us,  and  that 
it  is  the  poor  in  spirit,  the  humble,  the  clean  of  heart, 
who  "  will  see  God."  They  hear  this  cry  of  suffering 
sounded  by  Socialists,  coming  from  the  lips  of  little  chil- 
dren, from  the  anguished  hearts  of  mothers,  from  the 
echo  of  sweat-drops  as  they  fall  from  the  brows  of 
broken  men  upon  their  luckless  labor;  they  hear  it  on 
the  winds  of  fortune,  as  it  mingles  with  the  sounds  of 
riches,  revelry,  and  debauching,  and  they  are  swept  off 
the  rock  of  understanding  by  the  wave  of  sympathy  that 
surges  over  them.  Not  reflecting  that  this  life  is  only 
a  preparation  for  happiness,  and  if  it  could  be  itself  hap- 
piness there  would  be  no  need  of  a  life  to  come,  not 
distinguishing  between  heaven  and  earth,  their  souls  are 


xviii  INTRODUCTION 

stirred,  and  they  respond  with  spirit  to  the  cry  of  the 
Socialists:  "There  is  no  justice!  Our  civilization  is 
perverted !  Sweep  away !  Destroy !  Turn  back  the 
wheels  of  Time  and  begin  over! "  This  is  the  spirit  that 
makes  for  Socialism, —  discontent,  noble  or  ignoble ; 
recklessness;  desperation!  This  is  why  it  is  of  the  ut- 
most importance  to  consider  in  detail  what  Socialisdom 
will  be  and  how  it  would  meet  the  practical  problems  of 
a  civilized  and  progressing  society. 

For  there  is  no  doubt  that  society  is  progressing.  It 
is  progressing  among  all  classes,  though  perhaps  not 
among  some  so  much  as  they  deserve.  And  if  it  cannot 
be  demonstrated  that  it  will  progress  more  rapidly  in 
Socialisdom,  none  but  the  malcontents  of  society  will  cry 
out  for  the  change.  We  speak  of  progress  chiefly  in 
the  sense  that  it  is  an  expansion  and  growth  of  the  spirit 
of  love  —  for  God  and  f ellowman.  In  this  dual  spirit 
we  write.  Who  does  not  read  in  a  like  spirit  might  as 
well  stop,  for  to  leave  God  or  humanity  out  of  the  equa- 
tion of  the  universe  is  to  unseat  reason  from  its  throne 
and  make  of  all  thought,  all  desire  and  all  effort,  things 
but  of  folly  and  despair. 


PREFACE 

This  book  is  the  first  of  a  contemplated  series  which 
will  treat  of  modern  social  evils  and  their  correction. 
That  injustice  and  wrong  largely  characterize  present  day 
industrial  conditions  is  too  plain  to  be  denied,  too  serious 
to  be  ignored. 

Socialism  is  to-day  the  most  conspicious  proposal  look- 
ing to  a  betterment  of  these  conditions,  and  its  teachings 
and  their  bearing,  therefore,  are  properly  of  first  con- 
sideration in  this  series.  The  attitude  of  the  writer  to- 
ward Socialism  is  frankly  hostile, —  so  much  the  reader 
is  entitled  now  to  know, —  but  it  may  not  be  doubted  that 
the  criticism  and  protest  of  Socialist  propaganda  have 
done  much  to  bring  about  certain  wholesome  reforms 
begun  in  the  last  quarter-century. 

The  numbers  of  the  series  which  are  to  follow  will 
deal  more  directly  with  the  principal  social  ills,  pointing 
out  the  chief  causes  as  well  as  the  occasions  for  their 
existence  and  suggesting  possible  means  of  getting  rid 
of  them.  Each  number,  like  this  one,  will  be  arranged  in 
chapters  and  sections  with  the  view  of  being  easily  adapted 
to  the  uses  of  a  text  book.  A  list  of  authorities  is  ap- 
pended for  the  convenience  of  those  who  would  make  a 
more  thorough  study  of  the  subject,  and  a  full  index 
follows  for  ready  reference. 

Quite  a  number  of  persons  have  assisted  me  in  the 


PREFACE 

preparation  of  this  work,  and  though  their  modesty  is 
such  that  I  may  not  name  them  this  acknowledgement 
cannot  be  unwelcome  when  it  is  so  cheerfully  and  grate- 
fully made. 

BENEDICT  ELDER. 

Louisville,  Kentucky 

October  15,  1915. 


CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

PAGE 

I    Socialism iii 

II     Socialists viii 

III     Socialisdom xiii 

FIRST  PART 

(By  sections) 
THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  SOCIALISM 

CHAPTER  ONE 
THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE 

I    Value 3 

II    Surplus    Value        8 

III  The  Class   Struggle 10 

IV  Ownership 13 

V    Objections:        15 

1.  The   root   fallacy 15 

2.  The  practical  folly 17 

3.  The   social   injustice 18 

4.  The  surplus  value  bogey 21 

5.  The  impossible  class  struggle 23 

6.  The  collectivist  fatality 25 

CHAPTER  TWO 
THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE 

I    Method 27 

II    Content  3° 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

III  Theory  of  the  Universe 33 

IV  "  Economic   Determinism " 40 

V    Summary  and  Analysis 46 

CHAPTER  THREE 

THE  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLE 

I     Godlessness 49 

II     Humanitarianism 52 

III  Hostile  Attitude 54 

IV  Malicious  Attitude 57 

V    Religion   and   Socialism   Contrasted 60 

1.  Natural    Religion 61 

2.  Revealed  Religion 62 

3.  Christianity 63 

CHAPTER  FOUR 

THE  MORAL  PRINCIPLE 

I    Morals    Distinguished    from    Ethics 67 

II     Free  Will  a  Condition  of  Morality 68 

III  End  of  Man  the  Basis  of  Morality 70 

IV  Socialist  Conception  of  Morality 73 

V    The  Moral  Law  of  Socialism 81 

CHAPTER  FIVE 

THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE 

I     Civil  Authority 87 

II    The    State 91 

III    Civil   Law 100 

CHAPTER  SIX 

THE  SOCIAL  PRINCIPLE 

I    Sociality        114 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

II    Social  Classes •    .     .     .     .  116 

III    Class-consciousness n9 

SECOND  PART 
THE  HISTORY  OF  SOCIALISM 

CHAPTER  ONE 

THE  IDEA 

I  Platonic :3S 

II  Utopian :42 

III  "Scientific"        J5i 

IV  Practical X59 

CHAPTER  TWO 

THE  SENTIMENT x^3 

CHAPTER  THREE 

THE  MOVEMENT 

I  Formative  Period J78 

II  The    "International" l88 

III  National    Parties JS3 

1.  Germany IO3 

2.  England Te8 

3.  United    States 203 

THIRD  PART 
THE  AIMS  OF  SOCIALISM 

CHAPTER  ONE 

As  A  THOUGHT  MOVEMENT 

I     In  Philosophy 2I9 

II  In  Religion 223 

III  In  Morals          226 


CONTENTS 
CHAPTER  TWO 

PAGE 

As  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT 

I    Revolution 229 

i.    A  Criticism 233 

II    Reconstruction 236 

1.  As  to  what  the  State  must  acquire  ownership  in  238 

2.  As  to  how  acquisition  by  the  State  is  effected  .  246 
(a)    A  Comment 251 

CHAPTER  THREE 

As  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT 

I    The  Operation  of  Industry 254 

1.  As  to  the  Division  of  Labor 256 

2.  As  to  the  Direction  of  Labor 263 

II    The  Distribution  of  Goods 270 

1.  As  to  the  Needs  of  Society 271 

2.  "To  Each   According  to   His   Needs"   .     .     .  274 

3.  "  From  Each  According  to  His  Ability  "...  275 

(a)    A  Suggestion 277 

SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION 

STATEMENT 

I    Value 291 

II    Surplus  Value 292 

III  The  Class   Struggle 292 

IV  The  System 292 

V    The  Remedy .,..,..  293 

REFUTATION .., 294 

AUTHORITIES        301 

INDEX        319 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

CHAPTER  ONE 
THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE 

I.    VALUE 

The  Socialist  principle  of  economics  lies  at  the  root 
of  Socialist  philosophy.  This  principle  is  variously  de- 
fined and  described,  and  variously  illustrated  by  Social- 
ists; but  with  due  consideration  for  diversity  of  ex- 
pression and  of  detail,  it  is  fairly  summed  up  in  the 
Marxian  formula:  Labor  is  the  source  of  all  value.1 

As  employed  in  this  formula,  the  term  value  has  a 
meaning  quite  distinct  from  that  commonly  accepted.  It 
here  signifies,  not  utility  or  desirability,  but  merely  an 
exchange  characteristic.  It  does  not  belong  to  things 
in  general,  but  only  to  commodities.  The  distinction 
made  by  Socialists  between  products  and  commodities 
more  fully  elucidates  their  use  of  the  term  value.  A 
commodity  is  an  article  produced  for  purposes  of  ex- 

1  Though  it  has  come  to  be  identified  with  the  teachings  of 
Karl  Marx,  the  principle  set  out  in  the  formula  was  clearly  held 
by  Ricardo.  It  perhaps  was  first  suggested  by  Smith  (Wealth  of 
Nations,  37),  but  only  as  obtaining  in  the  very  earliest  stages 
of  civilization. 


4  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

change.  An  article  produced  for  consumption  without 
exchange  is  simply  a  product.  Not  being  designed  for 
use,  but  for  exchange,  a  commodity  has  no  use  charac- 
teristic. Likewise,  not  being  designed  for  exchange,  a 
product  has  no  exchange  characteristic.  Value  is  an 
exchange  characteristic.  It  is  that  characteristic  in  an  ' 
article  offered  for  exchange  by  which  the  article  to  be 
received  in  exchange  is  measured.2 

With  this  understanding  of  the  restricted  sense  in 
which  the  term  value  is  used,  we  can  follow  the  So- 
cialist argument,  which  perhaps  is  best  presented  by  an 
illustration.  Suppose  that  the  owner  of  a  wheat  surplus, 
which  on  account  of  its  being  a  surplus,  is  meant  for 
exchange,  and  is,  therefore,  a  commodity,  wishes  to  re- 
ceive furniture,  clothes,  implements,  live  stock,  for  each 
of  which  commodities  he  offers  a  certain  quantity  of 
wheat.  In  each  case  he  demands  an  equivalent  for  what 
he  offers.  The  diversity  of  these  commodities  is  such 
that  a  common  measure  or  comparison  of  the  things 
themselves  is  not  possible.  Some  charactistic  must  be 
found  that  is  alike  embodied  in  all  of  them,  so  that  by 
comparing  the  quantity  of  this  characteristic  embodied 
in  one  commodity  with  a  more  or  less  quantity  embodied 
in  another,  their  relative  values  may  be  determined. 
This  common  characteristic  is  labor.  Nothing  but  labor 
is  alike  necessary  to  all  commodities.  Hence,  labor  is 
the  only  common  denominator  as  it  were,  in  the  com- 

2 Marx  (Capital,  2-5),  distinguishes  between  "use-value"  and 
"exchange-value."  By  the  first  term,  he  means  simply  utility; 
by  the  second,  value  in  the  sense  of  the  text :  "  Exchange-value 
is  the  only  form  in  which  VALUE  can  manifest  itself  or  be 
expressed." 


THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE  5 

modities  of  the  world,  and  it  is  consequently  the  source 
and  the  determinant  of  all  value.3 

As  used  in  the  Marxian  formula,  also,  the  term  labor 
has  a  distinctive  meaning.  Among  the  earlier  Socialists 
there  appears  a  tendency  to  restrict  the  meaning  of  this 
term  to  manual  labor;  but  the  Socialists  of  the  present 
time,  following  the  later  utterances  of  Marx,  enlarge  its 
meaning  to  include  the  various  human  functions  ordi- 
narily exercised  in  the  production  of  commodities.  The 
extension  of  the  scope  of  this  term  has  obviated  many 
serious  difficulties  that  Socialist  apologists  formerly  en- 
countered. Other  difficulties  remain,  however,  and  to 
meet  these,  Socialists  reverse  the  process  and  restrict  the 
meaning  of  the  term  labor  to  what  they  call  "  social 
labor."  The  necessity  for  this  appears  from  the  fact 
that  not  infrequently  commodities  of  the  same  kind  and 
of  equal  quantity  embody  different  amounts  of  labor. 
Take  two  tons  of  coal,  one  of  which  was  mined  hundreds 
of  feet  under-ground  and  the  other  gathered  from  an 
out-crop.  It  cannot  in  truth  be  said  that  the  former, 
which  embodies  much  more  labor  than  the  latter,  is  of  a 
much  greater  value.  Now  if  both  tons,  though  em- 
bodying vastly  different  amounts  of  labor,  are  of  equal 
value,  this  fact  vitiates  the  Socialist  formula.  To  meet 
this  difficulty,  Socialists  make  use  of  the  term,  social 
labor,  and  distinguish  it  from  waste  labor  and  "gratu- 
itous service." 

Social  labor  is  defined  as  the  sum  of  human  effort 
that  under  average  social  conditions  is  necessary  to  pro- 
duce a  given  commodity.  Where,  by  reason  of  igno- 

3  The  illustration  is  adapted  from  Chas.  H.  Vail's  Principles  of 
Scientific  Socialism. 


6  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

ranee,  lack  of  skill,  aversion  to  modern  methods,  or  the 
like,  one  expends  more  labor  in  the  production  of  a  com- 
modity than  is  ordinarily  necessary,  it  is  reckoned  a 
waste  of  labor, —  as  where  one  would  dig  into  the  earth 
for  coal  when  there  was  an  abundance  on  the  surface. 
On  the  other  hand,  where  a  commodity  is  produced  with 
less  labor  than  is  ordinarily  necessary,  it  is  deemed  an 
instance  of  gratuitous  service, —  as  where  one  would  find 
an  out-cropping  when  coal  was  generally  being  mined 
from  under-ground.  Neither  waste  labor  nor  gratuitous 
service,  but  only  social  labor,  is  reckoned  in  the  value  of 
a  commodity.  Hence,  the  two  tons  of  coal  instanced, 
though  embodying  different  quantities  of  actual  labor, 
are  of  equal  value  because  they  represent  equal  quanti- 
ties of  social  labor.4 

Socialists  find  yet  another  distinction  to  be  necessary 
to  make  their  theory  plausible.  Neither  the  quality  nor 
the  intensity,  but  only  the  duration  of  labor  can  be 
measured.  Therefore,  quality  and  intensity  must  be 
eliminated  from  the  characteristics  of  labor  as  it  goes  to 
make  up  value.  To  do  this  without  seeming  to  vitiate 
their  principle,  Socialists  differentiate  labor  and  labor- 
power.  Labor  is  ordinarily  regarded  as  a  commodity 
that  is  bought  and  sold  as  other  commodities;  but  it  is 
obvious,  say  the  Socialists,  that  it  is  not  labor  itself  that 
is  bought  and  sold  on  the  markets,  for  before  it  is  ex- 
pended it  does  not  exist  and  after  it  is  expended  it  is 
crystallized  in  the  commodity  produced,  which  ordinarily 
belongs  to  the  capitalist  instead  of  the  laborer,  therefore, 
it  is  proper  to  consider  labor-power  and  not  labor  as  the 

4  Cf.  Value,  Price  and  Profit,  Marx,  56  et  seq. 


THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE  7 

commodity.5  Being  a  commodity,  labor-power  has  a 
value,  which  like  the  value  of  all  other  commodities,  is 
determined  by  the  labor  necessary  to  its  production,  that 
is  to  say,  by  the  labor  embodied  in  the  commodities  con- 
sumed in  the  production  of  the  labor-power.6  One  kind 
of  labor-power  differs  in  value  from  another  kind,  not 
because  it  is  a  different  kind,  either  in  quality  or  in- 
tensity, but  only  because  it  required  different  amounts 
of  what  may  be  broadly  termed  "  the  necessities  of  life  " 
to  produce  them.7  If  it  requires  $1000  worth  of  com- 
modities to  develop  a  plain  workman,  $3000  for  a  me- 
chanic and  $10,000  for  an  artist,  the  labor-power  of  the 
mechanic  would  be  three  times  that  of  the  workman  in 
value  and  that  of  the  artist  ten  times  that  of  the  work- 
man. The  workman  need  only  perform  three  units  of 
labor-time  to  equal  one  of  the  mechanic  and  ten  to  equal 
one  of  the  artist.  Thus,  labor  is  freed  from  all  such 
characteristics  as  quality  and  intensity  and  reduced  to  a 
common  product,  measurable  in  time  units  of  hours, 
days  or  weeks.8 

6  Cf.  Deville's  Socialism,  Internationalism  and  Revolution,  15 ; 
also,  Marx's  Value,  Price  and  Profit,  73. 

6  "  Thus,"  says  Marx  (op.  cit.),  "we  begin  by  saying  that  the 
value  of  labor  determines  the  value  of  commodities  and  we  con- 
clude by  saying  that  the  value  of  commodities  determines  the 
value  of  labor." 

7  "  Skilled  labor,"  says  Marx  (Capital,  7),  "counts  only  as  sim- 
ple labor  multiplied,  a  given  quantity  of  skilled  being  equal  to 
a  greater  quantity  of  unskilled  labor.     For  simplicity's  sake  we 
account  every  kind  of  labor  simple  labor." 

8  Vail  says  (op.  cit.,  43)  :     "  One  hour's  work  of  the  artist,  say, 
represents  5  units,  and  that  of  the  hod-carrier,  one.    Thus  all 
concrete  labor  can  be  reduced  to  units  of  abstract  labor  measur- 
able in  time  units  of  hours,  days  or  weeks.    The  same  is  true  of 


8  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Socialists  seem  to  be  very  sure  that  their  ingenuity  has 
thus  met  every  objection  to  be  urged  against  their  theory 
of  value,  and  that  with  the  distinctions  noted  thoroughly 
understood,  this  theory  is  the  only  correct  basis  upon 
which  to  build  a  scientific  scheme  of  political  economy. 
Before  undertaking  to  point  out  other  objections  that 
seem  to  us  valid,  it  may  be  well  first  to  note  the  bearings 
of  this  theory  on  other  Socialist  theories  of  economics. 

II.     SURPLUS-VALUE 

It  is  said  that  an  understanding  of  the  tneory  of  Sur- 
plus-Value is  the  beginning  of  Socialist  knowledge.1 
Without  a  doubt,  this  theory  is  of  the  most  radical  im- 
portance to  Socialism.  It  is  the  working  theory  of  the 
Socialist  movement.  Although  somewhat  tedious  to 
define,  with  the  aid  of  practical  illustrations  it  can  be 
grasped  quite  readily. 

Surplus- value  is  the  product  of  surplus  labor.  Surplus 
labor  is  the  labor  exerted  over  and  above  that  which  is 
necessary  to  restore  the  labor-power  exhausted.  If  a 
man  produces  enough  of  "  the  necessities  of  life  "  to  last 

professional  labor.  Quality  is  thus  reduced  to  quantity."  Cf. 
also,  Socialism  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  Sprague,  61.  It  is 
after  fully  developing  this  idea  that  Vail  declares  (91)  that 
"  Under  Socialism,  vouchers  for  labor  would  take  the  place  of 
money.  For  every  day's  labor  a  certificate  would  be  issued 
against  the  wealth  created,  which  would  exchange  for  any  com- 
modity containing  that  amount  of  labor-time." 

1  Cf.  Industrial  Socialism,  56.  Perhaps  the  plainest  statement 
of  this  theory  to  be  found  in  Socialist  literature  appears  in  Marx's 
Value,  Price  and  Profit,  75,  sqq.  Cf.  also,  Capital,  128,  sqq. 
Marx  no  doubt  derived  the  idea  of  Surplus-Value  from  the  Eng- 
lish writers,  Godwin,  Hall,  and  Thompson,  but  he  does  not 
appear  to  have  given  them  the  credit. 


THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE  9 

him  one  day  by  working  only  two  hours,  then  the  value 
of  his  labor-power  for  a  day  is  equivalent  to  two  hours 
of  work.  For  that  man  two  hours  of  work  each  day  is 
"  necessary  labor ; "  all  the  work  he  does  over  that  is 
surplus  labor,  which  produces  surplus  value. 

Since  it  is  a  commodity,  labor-power  has  a  value,  and 
this  value  is  determined  by  the  labor  worked  up  in  the 
"  necessities "  consumed  in  developing  the  labor-power. 
But,  though  its  value  is  thus  definitely  limited,  the  use 
of  the  labor-power  is  limited  only  by  the  strength,  skill, 
and  energy  of  the  laborer.  Having  produced  the  value 
of  his  labor-power  he  may  continue  to  work  until  his 
ability  is  exhausted,  but  in  such  a  case,  all  that  he  pro- 
duces during  the  over-time  is  surplus  value.  To  one 
not  practiced  in  the  vagaries  of  Socialistic  expression, 
this  will  appear  more  simple  by  considering  that  the  value 
of  labor-power  is  equivalent  to  cost.  Therefore,  when 
the  cost  has  been  replaced  by  the  use  of  the  labor-power 
for  a  given  time,  whatever  further  use  is  made  of  it 
results  in  profit.  Surplus  value,  therefore,  is  equivalent 
to  profit.2 

2  "Out  of  it,"  says  a  Socialist  writer  (N.  A.  Richardson,  In- 
dustrial Problems,  21),  "are  paid  all  dividends,  interest,  rents, 
and  profits.  It  supports  tens  of  thousands  wholesale  and  retail 
establishments.  It  builds  the  railways,  business  blocks,  factories, 
highways  and  mansions  of  the  nation.  It  furnishes  the  blood 
and  sinew  of  an  industrial  tyranny."  "  It  is  unpaid  labor,"  says 
another  (Geo.  D.  Herron,  Revolution  to  Revolution,  13),  "that 
towers  in  the  steeples  of  our  churches,  that  sits  in  our  legisla- 
tures, that  builds  palaces  in  our  avenues,  that  blossoms  in  our 
fashions,  that  drones  in  our  academies,  that  produces  our  novels 
and  our  poetry  and  sings  in  Kipling's  brute  heroics.  Our  civiliza- 
tion and  all  the  civilizations  that  have  been,  are  but  institutional- 


io  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Socialist  propagandists  usually  define  surplus  value  as 
unpaid  labor.  When  an  employer  hires  labor-power,  he 
pays  for  its  value,  that  is,  sufficient  to  maintain  it.  But 
by  paying  for  its  value  for  one  day,  he  acquires  the  right 
to  use  it,  not  only  for  such  time  as  is  necessary  to  re- 
produce its  value,  but  for  the  entire  day.  If  it  reproduces 
its  value  in  two  hours,  and  the  employer  uses  it  for  ten 
hours,  he  gets  eight  hours  of  labor  for  which  he  does  not 
pay.  This  is  what  Socialists  mean  when  they  say  that 
the  workingman  is  "  robbed  "  by  his  employer  of  about 
So%  of  his  wages.3  The  employer  is  the  "  capitalist " 
of  society.  He  hires  labor-power  at  its  value,  but  ex- 
tracts from  it  all  the  use  of  which  it  is  capable,  and  thus 
realizes  out  of  the  mere  incident  of  relation  between 
employer  and  employe  an  indefensible  profit  by  means 
of  which  he  constantly  and  systematically  increases  the 
advantage  of  his  position.  From  this  idea,  another 
Socialist  theory  is  begotten. 

III.     THE  CLASS  STRUGGLE 

Socialists  teach  that  society  is  divided  into  two  great 
classes,  the  class  that  produces  and  the  class  that  con- 
sumes surplus  value,  the  working  class  and  the  capitalist 
class.  The  interests,  the  aims,  and  the  hopes  of  these 

ized  unpaid  labor,  conventionalized  robbery  of  the  common  labor 
of  mankind." 

3  Debs  says  (Life,  Writings  and  Speeches,  428)  :  "  The  worker 
receives  only  about  17%  of  the  product  of  his  labor  and  is 
robbed  of  83%."  Another  Socialist  authority  (National  Office 
Bulletin,  No.  14)  puts  it  exactly  at  87.52%.  These  figures  are 
based  on  the  total  output  of  the  several  industries,  and  do  not 
allow  for  cost  of  maintenance,  taxes,  insurance,  rents,  interest, 
and  the  like,  to  say  nothing  of  dividends  and  profits. 


THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE  n 

two  classes  are  diametrically  opposed,  and  no  sort  of 
reform  measures  can  do  away  with  this  conflicting  char- 
acter. The  working  class  is  entitled  to  all  it  produces : 
"  If  the  workingman  is  not  entitled  to  all  he  produces, 
who  is  ?  "  asks  Debs  in  his  catch-penny  way  of  speaking. 
Of  course,  the  realization  of  this  idea  means  the  utter 
destruction  of  the  capitalist  class,  which  the  Socialist 
platform  declares  has  "  no  right  to  be."  Here,  we  have 
a  deadly  conflict,  on  one  side  or  the  other  of  which  is 
ranged  every  member  of  society.  This  class-conflict  has 
been  going  on  ever  since,  in  the  course  of  his  advance- 
ment, man's  productive  capacity  began  to  outrun  the  cost 
of  his  maintenance.  It  will  continue  until  the  capitalist 
class  is  destroyed.  Its  intensity  may  be  diminished,  as 
in  the  past  it  has  been,  by  revolution  or  reform;  it  may 
at  times  seem  almost  to  pass  away,  owing  to  changes 
in  the  mode  of  production  or  in  the  capitalist  base  of 
exploitation;  but  withal,  the  conflict  between  working- 
men  and  capitalists  is  an  inherent  conflict  that  can 
cease  only  when  one  or  the  other  class  has  been  removed 
from  society.  During  the  centuries  past,  the  struggle  on 
the  part  of  the  working  class  has  been  more  instinctive 
than  intelligent,  and  for  this  reason,  notwithstanding  its 
greater  numbers,  it  has  been  unable  to  throw  off  the 
oppression  of  the  capitalists.  Indeed,  the  great  numbers 
of  the  workers,  each  of  which  is  a  unit  producing  surplus 
value  for  the  benefit  of  the  capitalist  class,  has  only 
served  to  make  the  oppression  more  grievous.  But, 
thanks  to  Socialism,  the  working  class  is  rapidly  becom- 
ing more  intelligent,  and  it  is  only  a  matter  of  time  when 
all  of  its  members  will  attain  to  "  class-consciousness," 
when,  instead  of  strengthening  the  position  of  the  capi- 


12  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

talists,  as  they  now  unwittingly  do,  they  will  overthrow 
and  destroy  them.1 

Such  is  the  Socialist  Class-struggle  theory,  which,  in 
connection  with  the  theory  of  surplus  value,  is  diligently 
taught  by  all  Socialist  propagandists.  Indeed,  it  may  in 
truth  be  said  that  the  immediate  aim  of  all  Socialist 
endeavor  is  to  instill  into  the  minds  of  certain  classes  of 
workingmen  the  belief  that  they  are  being  systematically 
robbed  by  the  capitalists  and  the  conviction  that  they  are 
powerful  enough  to  put  an  end  to  this  system,  by  force  if 
necessary.  The  ultimate  aim  is  the  extinction  of  capi- 
talists and  capitalism,  and  whatever  promises  in  the  re- 
motest degree  to  further  this  purpose  is  acceptable  to 
Socialists.  But  the  crowning  device  of  their  scheme  to 
root  out  capitalism  from  civilization  and  lift  the  work- 
ingman  from  his  low  estate,  is  that  of  public  or  collective 
ownership  of  the  means  for  production,  distribution,  and 
exchange.  The  Socialist  principle  of  economics  begins 
with  the  theory  of  value ;  it  ends  with  the  theory  of  public 
or  collective  ownership.2 

!Cf.  Communist  Manifesto  (1848),  Gotha  (1875)  and  Erfurt 
(1891)  Programs  and  the  platforms  of  the  Socialist  Party  of 
the  United  States,  1904,  1908,  1912.  Nearly  all  Socialist  propa- 
ganda sets  out  the  Class-struggle  theory  at  greater  or  lesser 
length,  but  one  of  the  most  succinct  statements  of  it  is  that  of 
G.  Deville,  of  high  Socialist  repute,  found  in  his  booklet,  Social- 
ism, Internationalism  and  Revolution,  u.  For  another  plain  state- 
ment, cf.  Kauff man's  What  Is  Socialism?  Chap.  V,  "  War  of  the 
Classes." 

2  Cf .  Common  Sense  of  Socialism,  John  Spargo ;  Socialism  in 
Theory  and  Practice,  Morris  Hillquit ;  Evolution  of  Property, 
Paul  Lafargue;  Philosophy  of  Socialism  (an  economic  instead  of 
a  philosophic  dissertation),  A.  M.  Simons,  all  of  which  are  widely 
read  in  Socialist  circles. 


THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE  13 

IV.     OWNERSHIP 

Socialists  hold  that  it  is  wrong  for  a  man  to  own 
property  he  does  not  use,  or  use  property  he  does  not 
own.  They  say  that  what  is  personally  used  should  be 
personally  owned  and  what  is  collectively  used  should  be 
collectively  owned,  for  in  this  manner  alone  can  the 
exploitation  and  robbery  of  labor  be  stopped.  The  pre- 
vailing system  of  ownership  appears  to  them  to  violate 
justice  in  each  of  the  particulars  indicated.  On  the  one 
hand  some  persons  own  much  more  than  they  can  use; 
and  on  the  other,  many  persons,  in  order  barely  to  live, 
are  required  to  use  what  they  do  not  own.  Socialists 
conceive  that  this  system  makes  the  user,  the  laborer, 
dependent  upon  the  owner,  the  capitalist,  and  as  a  result 
of  this  dependency,  the  laborer  is  required  to  pay  the 
capitalist  a  tribute,  wrung  from  his  hard  toil,  for  the 
mere  privilege  of  living  by  the  use  of  another's  property. 
This  tribute  may  take  the  form  of  rent,  interest,  divi- 
dends or  profits,  which  are  only  separate  names  for  sur- 
plus value ;  but  in  any  event  it  is  taken  from  the  product 
of  labor.  Hence,  the  Socialists  say,  the  prevailing  sys- 
tem of  ownership,  which  entails  the  loss  to  labor  of  a 
part,  and  much  the  greater  part,  of  its  product,  is  mani- 
festly contrary  to  justice. 

To  remedy  this  condition,  Socialists  propose  that  no 
person  should  own  property  that  another  person  uses, 
and,  so  far  as  is  possible,  every  person  should  own  the 
property  that  he  uses,  while  property  that  more  than  one 
uses  is  to  be  collectively  owned.  The  object  of  Socialist 
ownership  is  to  make  it  impossible  for  one  person  to 
acquire  surplus  value,  or  profit,  dividend,  interest  or 


14  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

rent,  through  the  labor  of  another.  But  this  can  be 
accomplished  only  by  making  it  impossible  for  one  per- 
son to  acquire  the  labor  of  another,  and  this,  in  turn,  can 
be  accomplished  only  by  the  public  asserting  ownership 
and  control  of  all  of  the  instruments  for  production  and 
distribution  that  might  be  used  by  one  person  while 
owned  by  another.1 

The  details  of  the  theories  of  value,  surplus  value,  the 
class  struggle,  and  ownership, —  which  go  to  make  up  the 
Socialist  principle  of  economics, —  are  bewildering  in 
their  number  and  variety,  but  the  foregoing  is  a  compre- 
hensive and  accurate  outline.  A  striking  feature  of  these 
theories  is  the  continuity  of  thought  that  links  them  to- 
gether. With  a  precision  that  all  but  justifies  their  use 
of  the  term  scientific,  Socialists  refer  the  several  phases 
of  their  principle  of  economics  to  its  basic  formula: 
Labor  is  the  source  of  all  value.  If  the  principle  thus 
broadly  indicated  be  made  to  appear  reasonable,  Social- 
ists, theoretically,  can  urge  its  minor  divisions  with  con- 
siderable force.  Labor  being  the  source  of  all  value, 
surplus  labor  must  be  the  source  of  surplus  value,  and  a 
struggle  between  classes  for  its  control  becomes  in- 
evitable, and  collective  ownership  seems  the  only  feasible 
plan  that  will  afford  relief.  But  if  the  proposition  that 

1  As  to  precisely  what  property  Socialists  propose  to  own,  we 
shall  consider  when  treating  of  the  "Aims  of  Socialism."  The 
reason  for  the  demand  for  collective  ownership  must  not  be  lost 
sight  of :  "  The  making  of  goods  for  profit  must  come  to  an 
end"  (Socialist  platform  (U.  S.),  1904),  because  "no  wage 
can  ever  be  fair  compensation  for  a  day's  work "  (Industrial 
Problems,  Richardson)  and  "  the  cry  for  a  fair  wage  is  an  insane 
wish  never  to  be  fulfilled"  (Value,  Price  and  Profit,  Marx). 


THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE  15 

labor  is  the  source  of  all  value  be  shown  to  be  unreason- 
able, this  very  coherency  of  thought  in  Socialist  eco- 
nomics is  fatal  in  effect.  This  consideration  has  induced 
the  postponement  of  the  objections  deemed  pertinent,  to 
the  end  that  their  bearing  on  the  whole  principle  under 
discussion  would  be  readily  seen. 

V.  OBJECTIONS 

i.  The  root  fallacy. 

I  .  The  strength  of  the  Socialist  argument  is  the  assump- 
y  tion  that,  in  the  course  of  exchange,  the  parties  demand 
i  equivalents.  This  demand  necessitates  a  measure  of 
'  both  that  which  is  given  and  that  which  is  received  in 
exchange.  To  determine  on  this  measure  requires  in  all 
articles  of  exchange  a  common  characteristic  by  which 
they  can  be  measured.  This  common  characteristic  is 
found  to  be  labor.  The  force  of  the  entire  argument  is 
thus  seen  to  depend  upon  the  validity  of  the  assumption 
that  equal  values  are  demanded  by  the  parties  to  an 
exchange.  If  this  be  true,  a  unit  of  value  that  is  common 
to  all  commodities  must  be  found  and  it  is  difficult  to 
imagine  what  could  serve  this  purpose  more  nearly  than 
labor.  But  if  it  be  not  true,  then  the  whole  structure 
of  Socialist  economics  comes  tumbling  down  like  a  house 
of  cards. 

On  reflection,  however,  it  is  plain  that  the  parties  to 
an  exchange  do  not  demand  equal  values  in  the  exchange. 
If  they  did  there  would  be  no  reason  for  an  exchange. 
Between  commodities  that  are  of  equal  value,  and  that 
have  no  other  characteristic  except  value,  there  can  be 
no  intelligent  choice  and  there  can  be  no  purposive  ex- 


i6  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

change  of  them.  The  truth  is  that  exchange  occurs  only 
when  values  are  believed  by  both  parties  to  be  unequal. 
Each  party  prefers  that  which  he  acquires  to  that  which 
he  relinquishes  in  the  exchange.  The  very  inducement 
of  the  exchange  is  the  belief  on  the  part  of  each  party 
that  what  he  receives  is  more  valuable  to  him  than  what 
he  gives. 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  Socialists  do  not  allow 
that  a  commodity  possesses  any  other  than  a  value- 
characteristic  so  long  as  it  is  a  commodity,  which  it  cer- 
tainly is  at  the  time  of  the  exchange ;  hence,  they  may  not 
say  that  the  exchange  of  equal  values  is  induced  by  rea- 
son of  some  characteristic  other  than  value.  The  assump- 
tion that  equal  values  are  demanded  in  exchange,  is  in- 
dulged by  many  who  are  not  Socialists,  but  as  applied  by 
them  it  is  not  altogether  fallacious  because  they  allow  that 
characteristics  other  than  value  attach  to  commodities, 
and  these  may  induce  exchange  when  values  are  equal. 
Socialists  vitiate  the  little  truth  the  assumption  carries  as 
used  by  others,  when  they  exclude  from  the  commodity 
they  describe  every  characteristic  except  value.  More- 
over, it  is  necessary  for  them  to  exclude  all  others.  For 
with  all  their  ingenuity  they  cannot  measure  utility, 
rarity,  oddity,  beauty,  style,  or  the  many  other  charac- 
teristics that  go  to  make  up  desirability, —  they  cannot 
gauge  or  estimate  these  by  any  of  their  various  concep- 
tions of  labor,  actual  or  abstract.  Thus,  the  Socialists 
are  hedged  in  on  all  sides.  They  are  not  able  to  imagine 
an  intelligent  exchange  of  equal  values,  or  to  allow  that 
anything  but  values  are  exchanged.  And  thus,  as  an 
abstract  theory,  the  Socialist  principle  of  economics  ap- 
pears to  be  fatally  defective  at  the  very  root. 


THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE  17 

2.  The  practical  folly. 

While  the  fallacious  assumption  that  only  equivalents 
are  normally  exchanged,  is  probably  the  most  ruinous 
defect  in  the  Socialist  theory  as  a  pure  theory,  there  are 
other  objections  that  seem  quite  as  fatal  to  its  application. 
Chief  among  these  is  the  one  found  in  applying  that  elu- 
sive if  not  meaningless  term,  social  labor.  There  are 
ways  of  setting  out  pure  nonsense  in  such  fashion  that 
the  mind  of  man,  not  seriously  reflecting,  slips  quite 
readily  from  one  absurdity  into  another.  Socialists  are 
not  the  least  experienced  in  this  artful  method  of  enun- 
ciation. They  are  aware  that  the  average  human  intel- 
lect, like  a  moving  body,  follows  the  line  of  least  resist- 
ance, and  consequently  they  adopt,  and,  with  an  admirable 
display  of  ingenuity,  adhere  to,  a  plan  which  does  not 
remove  but  seeks  to  avoid  obvious  difficulties,  which  does 
not  discover  but  endeavors  to  keep  hidden  the  obscure 
ones,  and  to  this  end  they  distinguish  and  differentiate 
and  qualify  with  a  zeal  and  a  cleverness  that  might  grace 
a  better  cause. 

The  term,  social  labor,  serves  this  purpose  of  Socialists 
to  a  nicety.  It  overrides  facts  with  the  reckless  abandon 
of  a  rebel  archangel ;  assumes  labor  to  exist  where  it  does 
not,  and  denies  its  presence  where  it  is  perfectly  obvious. 
The  labor  necessary  to  produce  any  commodity  is  just 
exactly  the  labor  that  produces  it, —  which  differs  with 
every  different  workman,  every  different  stroke,  and 
every  different  thought  employed, —  in  every  different 
minute  of  time  and  every  different  place  in  the  world, — 
in  quantity,  quality,  intensity,  duration,  skill.  If  two 
commodities  ever  were  produced  by  precisely  the  same 
kind  and  quantity  of  labor,  it  was  altogether  due  to 


i8  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

chance  and  is  wholly  impossible  to  determine.  More 
nearly  an  infinite  variant  can  hardly  be  imagined  than 
the  labor  under  different  conditions  necessary  to  produce 
a  given  commodity.  No  amount  of  word- juggling  can 
do  away  with  this  variance  or  reduce  it  to  a  standard. 
Facts  cannot  be  made  to  fit  a  theory;  theory  must  con- 
form to  facts.  It  goes  "  trippingly  on  the  tongue  "  for 
Socialists  to  talk  about  "  ordinarily  necessary  labor," 
"  labor  on  the  average  necessary,"  "  normally  necessary 
labor,"  "  social  labor,"  etc.,  and  when  these  phrases  are 
permitted  to  pass  unchallenged,  they  make  just  the  im- 
pression needed  to  wing  the  thought-free  mind  from  one 
false  principle  to  another.  But  when  they  are  halted 
midway  in  their  flight  and  examined,  they  prove  to  be  as 
hollow  as  Dead  Sea  fruit,  clashing  with  facts,  supposing 
the  non-existent  to  exist,  and  assuming  the  impossible 
to  be  accomplished.  Not  until  human  activity  in  all  its 
phases  gives  place  to  mechanical  devices,  and  the  wants 
and  wishes  of  society  are  realized  by  the  touch  of  a 
button,  can  we  intelligently  speak  of  "  ordinarily  neces- 
sary labor,"  or  the  like. 

3.  The  social  injustice. 

Another  objection  to  the  Socialist  formula  is  its  failure 
to  allow  for  the  different  kinds  of  labor  that  persons  per- 
form. In  the  assumption  that  equivalents  are  demanded 
in  the  course  of  exchange,  there  is  a  logical  absurdity; 
in  the  restriction  of  the  term  labor  to  what  is  termed 
social  labor,  there  is  a  practical  absurdity ;  in  the  failure  to 
recognize  the  obvious  differences  that  obtain  in  labor  per- 
formed, there  is  a  manifest  injustice.  That  there  is  a 
difference  not  only  in  the  labor-power  but  in  the  very 
labor  of  different  persons,  is  a  fact  too  obvious  for  dis- 


THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE  19 

pute.  That  this  difference  results  in  the  production  of 
different  values,  is  equally  beyond  question.  Nor  can  it 
be  easily  conceived  how  any  just  standardization  of  these 
differences  is  possible.  The  laws  might  be  framed  to 
attempt  such  a  feat;  the  governmental  powers  can  arbi- 
trarily ignore  even  the  most  evident  facts ;  but  this  would 
not  root  out  the  inborn  sense  of  justice  that  ennobles  the 
human  race.  Neither  law  nor  logic  can  suspend  the 
facts  that  bear  on  the  question, —  the  labor  of  one  man  is 
often  more  productive  than  that  of  another,  the  product 
of  one  is  often  superior  to  that  of  another,  the  differences 
are  independent  of  the  cost  of  labor-power,  but  dependent 
on  the  will,  the  energy,  the  intelligence,  the  skill,  talent 
or  genius  of  the  man.  Theorists  may  willfully  shut 
their  eyes  to  these  facts,  like  Mohammed  seeking  to  up- 
root a  mountain  by  the  sound  of  his  voice ;  but  they,  like 
the  Moslem  bluffer,  must  finally  acknowledge  the  eternal 
truth  that  whatever  is,  is.  The  sad  feature  of  their 
delusive  folly  is  that  after  its  exposure  even,  many  blind 
fanatics  will  be  ready  to  overturn  the  world  for  the  sake 
of  the  very  leaders  who  have  deceived  them. 

"  The  lover  may  distrust  the  look  that  steals  his  soul  away, 
The  alchemist  may  doubt  the  gold  his  crucibles  fling  out, 
But  faith,  fanatic  faith,  once  wedded  fast 
To  some  dear  falsehood,  holds  it  to  the  last." 

If  we  could  compare  the  amounts  of  the  "  necessities 
of  life  "  consumed  by  a  Mme.  Curie,  a  Saint-Gaudens, 
an  Edison,  a  Whitcomb  Riley,  with  the  amounts  con- 
sumed by  an  equal  number  of  persons  engaged  in  clean- 
ing a  city  thoroughfare,  we  would  doubtless  find  that  the 
consumption  of  the  laborers  is  signally  the  greater.  Ac- 


20  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

cording  to  Socialist  theory,  this  means  that  their  labor- 
power  is  the  more  costly  or  more  valuable  and  their  labor- 
time  should  be  the  better  paid.  In  illustrating  this 
phase  of  their  theory,  Socialists  very  adroitly  assume 
that  it  costs  more  to  produce  and  maintain  the  labor- 
power  of  a  skilled  mechanic  than  of  a  plain  workman, 
and  more  to  produce  that  of  an  artist  than  of  a  mechanic, 
but  this  is  only  an  instance  of  their  thimble-rigging 
methods.  Nothing  could  be  wider  of  the  truth.  It  is 
both  a  notable  and  a  natural  fact  that  muscle  consumes 
more  than  mind  of  physical  things.  The  cost  of  the 
labor-power  spent  in  designing  St.  Peter's  probably  was 
no  greater  than  the  cost  of  that  spent  by  Michel  Angelo's 
servingman  while  putting  away  his  master's  summer  gar- 
ments. The  labor-power  of  one  person  may  cost  little 
but  produce  much,  while  that  of  another  may  cost  much 
but  produce  little.  "  Some  men  are  born  great,  some 
achieve  greatness  and  some  have  greatness  thrust  upon 
them."  It  is  not  uncommon  for  a  person  with  first-rate 
and  costly  opportunities  to  fail  in  the  battle  with  life, 
while  at  the  same  time  another  person,  who,  like  Topsy, 
"  jes  growed,"  overrides  all  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
splendid  achievement.  The  former  is  really  a  hindrance 
to  society,  and  the  latter  is  a  help  to  it,  but  the  Socialist 
theory  requires  the  greater  reward  for  him  who  does  the 
least,  because,  forsooth,  his  labor-power  has  cost  more. 
Socialists  will  promptly  disown  a  wrong  so  flagrant,  but 
if  the  logic  of  things  is  not  mistaken,  this  consequence 
results  inevitably  when  their  gauge  of  value  is  driven  to 
its  practical  conclusion.  Their  effort  to  avoid  this  con- 
sequence only  evinces  the  readiness  common  to  pretend- 
ers to  "  go  to  the  mountain  "  when  necessary.  It  shows, 


THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE  21 

too,  that  whatever  may  be  the  convictions  of  their  fol- 
lowers, the  Socialist  teachers  are  awake  to  the  fact  that, 
notwithstanding  their  energetic  claims,  their  whole 
scheme  of  economics  is  illogical,  impractical,  unjust. 

4.  The  surplus  value  bogey. 

While  the  theory  of  surplus  value  falls  with  the  fall  of 
the  theory  of  value,  upon  which  it  depends,  still  this 
theory  is  such  a  fruitful  source  of  Socialist  propaganda 
and  enthusiasm  that  it  claims  some  special  attention. 
The  surplus-value  idea  is  subject  to  the  same  fatal  trin- 
ity of  objections  that  has  been  urged  against  its  parent 
principle, —  it  does  not  square  with  logic  or  with  facts 
or  with  justice.  It  is  based,  if  not  upon  an  impossible, 
at  least  upon  an  undeterminable  hypothesis.  Whether  a 
workman  produces  more  or  less  than  he  consumes  dur- 
ing his  life  cannot  possibly  be  determined.  Hence,  it 
can  never  be  clear  and  certain  that  he  has  produced  a 
surplus  value.  This  is  equally  true  of  every  class  of 
workingmen.  It  is  not  even  remotely  possible  to  deter- 
mine either  the  amount  of  production  or  the  amount  of 
consumption.  No  number  of  statistics  can  show  to  what 
extent  railroads,  highways,  churches,  schools,  libraries, 
hospitals,  etc.,  are  used  by  a  class  and  in  part  consumed. 
And  of  production,  though  it  is  conceivably  possible  to 
determine  the  amount  a  class  produces  of  the  simpler 
products  that  require  no  education,  tools,  or  like  previ- 
ously acquired  means  for  production,  this  is  not  true  with 
respect  to  products  whose  production  requires  previously 
acquired  means.  Persons  may  not  make  use  of  these 
means,  which  they  do  not  themselves  produce,  and  then 
lay  claim  to  the  whole  of  the  product  that  by  use  of  them 
they  are  enabled  to  effect.  Nor  can  the  respective  con- 


22  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

tributions  of  the  man  and  the  means  be  apportioned. 
Socialists  make  an  attempt  at  this.  They  say  that  a  ma- 
chine, for  instance,  contributes  as  much  work  to  the  prod- 
uct as  the  machine  itself  embodies.1  But  this  is  only 
substituting  one  difficulty  for  another.  The  machine 
also  is  a  product,  and  those  who  produced  it  also  use 
means  not  produced  by  them.  Excluding  all  previously 
acquired  means  for  production,  it  is  difficult  to  imagine 
what  could  be  produced  by  a  person's  own  labor.  The 
imaginative  genius  of  Defoe  was  baffled  by  just  such  a 
difficulty,  and  he  was  compelled  to  supply  his  "  Crusoe  " 
with  knife,  gun,  saw, —  a  generous  tool  chest,  in  fact,  but 
above  all,  with  wide  experience  and  a  surprising  amount 
of  practical  information,  and  then  Crusoe  had  great  diffi- 
culty in  producing  more  than  a  livelihood.  Moreover, 
while  thus  feebly  attacking  the  difficulty  at  one  point  with 
their  example  of  the  machine,  Socialists  pass  over  the 
fact  that  machinery  is  only  one  among  innumerable  fac- 
tors that  have  been  produced  by  previously  expended 
labor  and  which  co-operate  with  the  instant  labor  in  the 
process  of  production.  Every  achievement  of  the  human 
race  that  has  been  made  in  the  direction  of  increased 
productive  capacity  since  its  very  beginning, —  and  So- 
cialists teach  that  there  is  no  achievement  but  was  made 
in  this  direction, —  must.be  considered  when  considering 
whether  a  workingman  of  to-day,  by  virtue  of  his  own 
labor,  produces  more  than  he  consumes. 

Thus  it  seems  a  manifest  error  to  assume  that  there  is 
a  surplus  product  created  by  any  person  or  class.  It 

1 "  It  makes  no  difference  how  useful  a  machine  may  be,  if  it 
costs  but  50  days'  labor  it  can  add  only  that  value  to  its  product " 
(Principles  Scientific  Socialism,  Vail,  39). 


THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE  23 

appears  more  probable  that  instead  of  producing  more 
than  they  consume,  most  persons  of  all  classes  in  the 
course  of  life  consume  more  than  they  produce.  When 
Socialists  declaim  about  unpaid  labor,  exploitation,  rob- 
bery, etc.,  they  fail  to  take  in  all  the  elements  that  enter 
into  production.  When  with  a  uniformity  that,  in  view 
of  the  premises,  argues  less  of  deduction  than  of  design, 
they  set  forth  that  the  average  workman  is  wrongfully 
deprived  of  four-fifths  of  his  own  product,  they  only 
elaborate  an  absurd  fiction.  But  there  is  mischief  in 
their  propaganda  despite  its  obvious  futility.  That  a 
person  is  justly  entitled  to  all  he  produces,  is  clear  to 
everyone,  and  when  one  is  persuaded  that  he  is  being 
systematically  deprived  of  the  greater  part  of  his  own 
product,  and  that  the  laws  of  his  country  afford  no  relief 
from  such  shameful  wrongdoing,  he  is  prepared  to  go  any 
length  to  establish  what  he  feels  to  be  his  just  demands. 
The  disposition  thus  aroused  in  the  working  classes  that 
heed  the  Socialist  outcry,  is  one  of  the  chief  forces  back 
of  the  Socialist  movement.  It  is  a  force  that  begins 
with  a  mere  persuasion,  but  it  grows  into  conviction,  and 
thus  furnishes  the  movement  with  an  energy  and  a  des- 
peration that  promise  grave  complications.  If  there  is  a 
class  struggle  anywhere  in  society,  here  is  its  origin.  It 
is  not  the  cause  of  Socialism,  but  the  effect.  It  is  engen- 
dered by  Socialist  propagandists  who  spare  no  pains 
to  spread  broadcast  their  inflammatory  teachings.  It  is  as 
broad  as  the  field  of  their  activity  and  as  deadly  as  their 
effort  at  driving  home  its  purpose  is  successful. 

5.  The  impossible  class-struggle. 

There  is  about  as  much  reason  to  suppose  that  there 
is  an  inherent  and  necessary  conflict  betv/een  capital  and 


24  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

labor,  as  to  believe  that  the  fabled  dispute  between  the 
upper  and  nether  millstones  about  which  of  them  ground 
more  of  the  miller's  corn,  is  anything  more  real  than  a 
fable.  When  two  or  more  factors  are  alike  necessary  to 
effect  a  result,  it  is  idle  to  speculate  which  contributes 
most  to  the  result.  Natural  resources,  animal  energy, 
and  human  intelligence  are  alike  necessary  for  our  civil- 
ization. The  bringing  of  these  factors  together  is  a  proc- 
ess of  unification,  not  of  conflict.  Conflict  means  disso- 
lution. Labor  flows  from  animal  energy  and  human  in- 
telligence combined;  capital,  from  labor  and  natural  re- 
sources combined.  All  that  goes  to  make  up  our  material 
civilization  is  the  result  of  bringing  together  labor  and 
capital.  One  or  another  of  the  primal  factors  may  pre- 
dominate in  a  particular  instance, —  intelligence  in  the 
labor  of  the  artist,  energy  in  that  of  the  ditch-digger;  in 
machine  capital,  labor;  in  landed  capital,  natural  re- 
sources,—  but  the  predominance  shifts  from  time  to 
time  and  from  one  instance  to  another,  and  always,  the 
factors  merge  as  it  were  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  indis- 
tinguishable when  embodied  in  the  product  they  effect. 
Since  the  combined  factors  mentioned  produce  civiliza- 
tion, in  order  to  perpetuate  itself  civilization  must  make 
returns  to  them  whereby  they  will  be  perpetuated,  and, 
too,  if  civilization  would  advance,  its  return  to  these  fac- 
tors must  improve  them.  This  delicate  adjustment  of 
returns  would  not  be  possible  on  the  hypothesis  that 
there  is  an  inherent  conflict  between  labor  and  capital. 
Nothing  would  be  more  certain  to  halt  the  advance  of 
civilization  than  a  state  of  perpetual  friction,  not  to  say 
warfare,  between  these  two  chief  factors  in  its  produc- 
tion. In  the  long  processes  of  material  development  in 


THE  ECONOMIC  PRINCIPLE  25 

the  past,  there  are  many  instances  of  such  a  friction,  and 
in  every  instance  it  has  operated  as  a  check  on  the  prog- 
ress of  the  human  race.  But  wherever  labor  and  capital 
have  stood  united,  the  march  of  both  has  been  forward, — 
a  consideration  that  should  bring  pause  to  the  malcon- 
tents who  would  set  them  at  loggerheads. 

6.  The  collectivist  fatality. 

The  norms  of  advancing  civilization  are  not  invariable, 
but  two  are  necessary.  They  are:  competition  and 
justice.  Competition  is  the  law  of  achievement;  justice, 
trie  law  of  reward.  One  insures  advancement;  the 
other,  permanence.  Both  are  essential  to  true  progress. 
When  justice  is  violated,  revolution  begins.  Competi- 
tion cannot  be  too  keen,  nor  justice  too  exact,  for  the 
welfare  of  society,  so  long  as  the  object  of  the  one  is 
merely  greater  achievement  and  that  of  the  other  only 
due  reward.  Injustice  arises  when  competition  is  for 
reward  greater  than  achievement.  Just  as  promptly, 
competition  begins  to  lag,  when  reward  is  not  commen- 
surate with  achievement.  To  insure  progress  and  per- 
manence, the  two  must  move  along  parallel  lines,  properly 
balanced,  equally  broad,  equally  enduring.  The  preser- 
vation of  this  balance  should  be  the  chief  object  of  Gov- 
ernment,—  to  prevent  the  stifling  of  competition  and  to 
secure  the  reward  that  is  due.  No  better  arrangement 
for  this  can  be  imagined  than  the  system  of  private  own- 
ership, supplemented  by  laws  whereby  free  competition 
is  insured  and  undue  advantage  is  prohibited  and 
crowned  by  charity,  whereby  the  unable  and  the  unfit  who 
fail  in  competition  are  cared  for.2  The  surplus-value 

2  The  indulgence  of  the  reader  is  asked  if  some  of  the  sug- 
gestions here  made  are  repeated  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Part 


26  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

theory  makes  a  curse  of  competition  and  a  crime  of  prop- 
erty and  in  view  of  it  charity  is  but  a  poor  restitution 
of  property  that  has  been  robbed  from  a  helpless  class 
in  society.  Collective  ownership  would  abrogate  compe- 
tition, and  the  advancement  of  the  human  race  would 
be  arrested,  if  not  turned  back,  as  a  consequence.  More 
on  this  subject  will  appear  in  that  part  of  our  study 
which  treats  of  the  "  Aims  of  Socialism." 

Third,  where  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  laws  governing  the  right 
distribution  of  reward  is  set  out  by  way  of  a  suggestion.  It 
may  be  well  here  to  suggest  that  the  last  four  chapters  of  Part 
Third  bear  an  important  relation  to  the  present  chapter  and  in 
the  final  estimate  of  Socialism  should  be  considered  in  connec- 
tion with  them. 


CHAPTER  TWO 
THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE 

I.     METHOD 

The  two  distinctive  notes  of  Socialist  philosophy  are 
its  dialectic  method  and  its  materialistic  content.  The 
first  was  adopted  from  Hegel,  the  second  from  Feuer- 
bach.  G.  W.  F.  Hegel  (1770-1831)  was  one  of  the 
classical  German  idealists.  According  to  his  philosophy, 
thought  and  being  are  identical ;  matter,  as  distinct  from 
mind,  does  not  exist;  the  seeming  variety  of  matter  ex- 
ists only  in  the  mind;  its  seeming  variation  is  the  evo- 
lution of  thought.  This  evolution  embraces  three  suc- 
cessive stages:  thesis,  antithesis,  synthesis.  That  is  to 
say,  thought  (thesis)  generates  its  own  negation  (an- 
tithesis), and  these  opposites  resolve  themselves  into  a 
higher  unity  (synthesis),  which,  though  another  distinct 
being,  is  only  thought  (thesis),  from  which  another  pro- 
cession begins.  In  other  words,  thought  is  first  itself, 
then  becomes  other  than  itself,  then  changes  from  its 
otherness  back  to  itself,  having  by  this  easy  manoeuver 
somehow  improved  upon  its  former  self  so  as  to  be  a 
new  being.  Hegel  conceives  this  evolution  as  going  on 
eternally;  there  is  nothing  immutable,  but  all  is  chang- 
ing; nothing  inactive,  but  all  moving;  nothing  final,  but 
all  beginning;  the  one  fixed  thing  in  the  universe  is  the 
fixed  law  that  nothing  is  fixed.  He  epitomises  his  whole 

27 


28  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

system  of  philosophy  in  his  famous  expression :  "  Noth- 
ing is,  everything  is  becoming." 

This  method  of  reasoning,  if  it  may  out  of  courtesy 
be  called  reasoning,  has  received  the  name  "  dialectic." 
It  is  distinguished  from  metaphysical  reasoning  in  that 
it  recognizes  no  universal  first  principles.  Kant  has  the 
questionable  distinction  of  having  been  the  first  man  of 
note  to  dispute  recognized  first  principles  of  thought,  such 
as  the  principle  of  contradiction,  which  he  opposed 
with  his  doctrine  of  Antinomies.  But  Hegel  follows 
close  after  and  even  "  outreasons  "  Kant  by  identifying 
existence  with  non-existence,  cause  with  effect,  and  self 
with  something  else,  thus  robbing  the  human  mind  of 
its  primary  concepts  and  thereby  committing  intellectual 
suicide.  If  a  thing  may  be  said  to  be  and  at  the  same 
time  not  to  be,  or  to  be  itself  and  at  the  same  time  some- 
thing else,  it  is  perfectly  useless  to  affirm  this  or  that 
of  anything  in  the  universe,  for  another  may  affirm  the 
exact  contrary,  and  neither  can  be  convicted  of  error. 
With  the  universal  first  principles  of  reason  abrogated, 
sense  and  nonsense  embrace  one  another  inseparably  and 
forever. 

Socialist  philosophy  is  adapted  to  the  method  of  the 
Hegelian  school.  Karl  Marx  and  his  collaborator, 
Frederick  Engels,  the  accredited  founders  of  Scientific 
Socialism,  rejected  metaphysics  and  used  dialectics  in 
their  philosophical  system  and  this  original  impress  is  the 
distinctive  mark  of  the  entire  field  of  Socialist  thought. 
The  following  paragraphs  from  the  writings  of  these 
men  will  not  only  show  their  attitude  toward,  but  will 
also  further  elucidate,  the  dialectic  method. 

"  Truth  is  not  a  collection  of  ready-made,  dogmatic 


THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE  29 

statements;  truth  lay  in  the  process  of  knowledge.  .  .  . 
Dialectic  philosophy  destroyed  all  theories  of  absolute 
truth.  In  face  of  it,  nothing  final,  absolute  or  sacred 
exists ;  and  nothing  can  exist  before  it  save  the  unbroken 
process  of  coming  into  existence  and  passing  away."  1 
"  One  cannot  be  any  longer  imposed  upon  by  the  inflated, 
unsubstantial  antithesis  of  the  metaphysics  of  true  and 
false,  good  and  evil,  identical  and  differentiated,  neces- 
sary and  accidental."  z  "  To  the  metaphysician,  things 
and  their  mental  reflexes  (ideas)  are  isolated  .  .  .  fixed, 
rigid,  given  once  for  all.  For  him  a  thing  either  exists 
or  does  not  exist,  a  thing  cannot  at  the  same  time  be 
itself  and  something  else,  positive  and  negative  exclude 
one  another,  cause  and  effect  stand  in  antithesis  to  one 
another.  .  .  .  But  Nature  works  dialectically  and  not 
metaphysically.  An  exact  knowledge  of  the  universe,  of 
the  development  of  mankind,  can  only  be  obtained  by 
the  method  of  dialectics." 3  Anticipating  the  objection 
that  his  dialectic  method  is  at  variance  with  common 
sense,  Engels  facetiously  remarks  that  "  common  sense, 
respectable  fellow  that  he  is  in  the  homely  realm  of  his 
own  four  walls,  has  very  wonderful  adventures  directly 
he  ventures  out  into  the  wide  world  of  research."  * 

But  the  idealism  of  Hegel  did  not  appeal  to  the  So- 
cialist philosophers.  It  savored  too  much  "  of  the  fan- 
tastical survival  of  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  a 

1  Feuerbach,  Engels,  38. 

2  Ibid.,  97- 

3  Socialism,    Utopian   and   Scientific,   Engels,   79.    This   work, 
though  bearing  the  name  of  Engels  only,  is  the  joint  production 
of  Marx  and  Engels. 

*  Ibid.,  So 


30  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

supra-mundane  creator."  5  Hegel's  system  was  an  ideal 
evolutionary  pantheism,  but  Marx  and  Engels  would  not 
subscribe  to  theism  of  any  sort,  so  to  get  rid  of  Hegel's 
pantheism,  they  rejected  his  idealism,  and  his  dialectics, 
thus  detached  from  its  original  base,  they  inverted  and 
rested  on  the  materialism  of  Feuerbach. 

II.     CONTENT 

Ludwig  Feuerbach  (1804-1872)  was  the  arch-material- 
ist of  his  day.  His  teaching  is  diametrically  opposed  in 
both  method  and  content  to  the  Hegelian  school.  Hegel 
conceived  the  all-inclusive  principle  of  the  universe  to 
be  mind;  Feuerbach  denied  the  reality  of  the  mind  as 
distinguished  from  matter.  Hegel's  "  mind  "  was  in  con- 
stant process  of  evolution ;  Feuerbach's  "  matter  "  only 
varied.  The  two  systems  are  similar  in  that  both  are 
monistic,  recognizing  only  one  principle  in  all  being. 
But  contradictory  in  that  one  is  pure  idealism  and  the 
other  pure  materialism,  and  one  is  evolving  while  the 
other  is  fixed.  As  Marx  and  Engels  rejected  Hegel's 
idealism,  so  they  rejected  Feuerbach's  immutableism. 
They  held  with  the  latter  that  matter  is  the  eternal,  all- 
inclusive  principle  of  the  universe.  But  they  adopted  the 
former's  view  that  the  universe  was  in  a  constant  process 
of  evolution,  not  mere  variation.  The  distinction  be- 
tween evolution  and  variation  may  be  elucidated  by  con- 
sidering variation  as  a  change  with  reference  to  a  fixed 
standard,  and  evolution  as  a  change  without  reference  to 
a  standard.  Socialists  illustrate  this  distinction  by  the 
use  of  two  symbols,  the  circle  and  the  spiral.  In  the  cir- 

5  Feuerbach,  Engels,  63. 


THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE  31 

cle  all  lines  move  with  reference  to  the  center.  Each  line 
of  the  spiral  has  a  direction  entirely  its  own.  The  first 
represents  variation,  the  second  evolution.1 

Engels  has  given  us  an  elaborate  analysis  of  the  men- 
tal processes  through  which  Marx  and  himself  arrived  at 
their  conclusion  to  combine  in  a  new  philosophy  parts 
of  the  two  systems  of  Hegel  and  Feuerbach.  "  Feuer- 
bach  held  quite  correctly,"  he  says,  "  that  scientific  ma- 
terialism is  the  foundation  for  the  building  of  human 
knowledge.  But  it  is  not  the  building  itself.  We  live 
not  only  in  nature,  but  in  human  society,  which  has  its 
theory  of  development  no  less  than  nature.  It  was  nec- 
essary, therefore,  to  bring  the  science  of  society  into 
harmony  with  the  materialistic  foundations  and  to  re- 
build upon  them." 2  In  another  place  Engels  tells  us 
that  Hegel's  system,  while  true  in  method,  lacked  the 
proper  foundation :  "  In  Hegel's  system,  the  whole 
world,  natural,  historical,  intellectual,  is  truly  repre- 
sented as  a  process,  i.e.  as  in  constant  motion,  change, 
transformation,  development."  3  This  is  dialectic  evolu- 
tion. But  as  seen  by  Hegel,  "  in  spite  of  all  zigzag 
movements,  it  is  only  the  self -progression  of  the  Idea 
from  eternity,"  and  since  matter  and  not  mind  is  the 
true  foundation  of  evolution,  according  to  Engels,  "  this 
topsy-turvy  ideology  had  to  be  put  aside.  Therefore  the 

1  This  illustration  is  used  by  Enrico  Ferri,  in  his  Socialism  and 
Modern  Science.    He  adopts  it  from  Goethe.    It  is  not  apt.    The 
lines  of  a  spiral  are  directed  by  two  fixed  points,  a  center  and 
a  perpendicular.    The  spiral  is  a  symbol  not  of  creative  evolu- 
tion but  of  development  directed  by  two  intelligences :  God  and 
man. 

2  Feuerbach,  70. 

3  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,  85. 


32  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

dialectic  of  Hegel  was  turned  upside  down,  or  rather  it 
was  placed  upon  its  feet  instead  of  upon  its  head,  where 
it  was  standing  before."  4  Marx  has  given  us  an  epitome 
of  his  conclusions  also :  "  My  dialectic  method  is  not 
only  different  from  the  Hegelian,  but  directly  opposite. 
To  Hegel  the  process  of  thinking  ...  is  the  demiurgos 
of  the  real  world,  the  real  world  is  only  the  external 
form  of  the  '  Idea.'  With  me,  on  the  contrary,  the  ideal 
is  nothing  else  than  the  material  world  reflected  by  the 
mind  and  translated  into  forms  of  thought.  Hegel's 
dialectic  is  standing  on  its  head  and  it  must  be  turned 
right  side  up  again  to  discover  the  rational  kernel  within 
the  mystical  shell."  5 

Accordingly,  Marx  and  Engels  founded  a  new  system 
of  philosophy,  an  evolutionary  materialistic  monism,  that 
combines  the  dialectic  of  Hegel  with  the  materialism  of 
Feuerbach,  that  represents  the  universe  as  purely  mate- 
rial and  constantly  changing  without  reference  to  any 
standard  from  itself  to  its  otherness  and  then  back  to 
itself ;  a  universe  where,  they  say,  "  nothing  but  matter 
exists,"  where  "  the  ideal  is  nothing  but  the  material  re- 
flected by  the  human  brain,"  where  "  thought  and  think- 
ing matter  are  identical,"  where  "  a  final  conclusion,  a 
complete  humanity,  a  finished  society,  a  perfect  state,  an 
eternal  existence,  an  unchangeable  truth,  are  only  phan- 
tasies." 6 

*  Feuerbach,  96. 

6  Capital,  Marx,  preface  to  2nd  edition. 

6  Cf.  Holy  Family,  Anti-Duehring,  Critique  of  Political  Econ- 
omy, in  each  of  which  Marx  and  Engels  set  out  their  philosophy 
with  more  or  less  detail  but  substantially  as  in  their  other  works 
cited. 


THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE  33 

III.    THEORY  OF  THE  UNIVERSE 

Cosmology,  biology,  and  anthropology,  respectively, 
treat  of  inorganic,  organic,  and  human  existence.  Since 
these  are  distinct  existences,  those  are  distinct  sciences. 
Toward  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  however, 
the  well-defined  character  of  these  sciences  came  to  be 
disputed  by  Lamarck,  Darwin,  Spencer,  Huxley,  Mill, 
and  others  of  the  neo-materialistic  schools  of  radical  evo- 
lutionism that  sprang  up  during  that  period  of  extrava- 
gant and  perverted  thought.  In  its  popular  acceptation, 
"  Darwinism  "  has  come  to  be  understood  as  including 
most  of  the  various  evolutionary  theories  of  that  time, 
and  also,  most  of  the  present-day  theories  that  account 
for  the  origin  of  existence  by  evolution.  Extravagance 
and  perversity  are  dominant  characteristics  of  Darwin- 
ism,—  extravagance  in  making  an  observation  the  basis 
for  a  universal  law,  perversity  in  stubbornly  refusing 
to  acknowledge  self-evident  truths.  A  Darwinist  will 
"  demonstrate  "  more  hypotheses  by  an  unassignable  frag- 
ment of  a  nameless  fossil  than  the  rest  of  mankind  will 
venture  to  predicate  on  the  seasons  and  the  planets  and 
the  courses  of  the  stars.  He  will  question  a  mathe- 
matical axiom  as  readily  as  others  will  question  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Brobdignagians. 

Darwinism  is  admirably  adapted  to  the  development 
of  the  Hegel-Feuerbach  hybrid  of  dialectic  materialism 
that  Marx  and  Engels  produced.  Socialists  generally 
have  not  been  slow  to  perceive  this  adaptability,  and,  as 
a  consequence,  Darwinism  has  come  to  be  accepted  by 
them  as  the  last  word  in  experimental  and  philosophic 
science.  With  perfect  complacency  Scientific  Socialists 


34  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

will  deliver  themselves  of  statements  utterly  gratuitous 
and  absurd,  as  if  the  accumulated  intelligence  of  past 
ages  had  verified  them.  They  out-Darwin  Darwin  in 
their  theories,  but  all  who  presume  to  question  their  vain 
imaginings  are  condemned  as  having  "  no  part  or  lot  in 
the  intellectual  life."  * 

According  to  the  Socialist  theory  of  the  universe  the 
distinction  among  inorganic,  organic,  and  human  exist- 
ences, is  a  distinction  having  no  foundation  in  fact.  It 
claims  for  all  being,  whether  known  or  imaginable,  the 
same  life,  consciousness,  and  will.  These  attributes 
evolve,  spiral-like,  from  nebulae  to  protoplasm,  from 
protoplasm  to  cell,  from  cell  to  organism,  resulting 
finally  in  man,  the  highest  order  of  being  possible.  The 
following  paragraphs,  condensed  from  the  work  of  a 
writer  on  Socialist  philosophy,  will  illuminate  this  theory 
and  show  the  extent  of  the  vagaries  of  Socialist  sci- 
ence. 

"  In  the  dim  past  we  see  an  infinite  mass  of  infin- 
itesimally  minute  particles  of  ether-dust  whirling  about 
in  all  directions.  Here  is  life  with  all  its  attributes. 
Consciousness  and  will  are  among  these  attributes,  just 
as  are  electricity,  magnetism,  indestructibility,  impene- 
trability. This  picture  shows  all  there  is  in  the  universe 
at  that  remote  stage.  This  is  the  cosmos,  god,  infinite, 
that  created  itself  out  of  itself.  In  the  evolution  of  this 
ether-universe,  the  positive  life  of  a  certain  stage  gene- 
rates its  own  negation.  The  negative  forces  later  domi- 
nate the  positive  forces  and  transform  them  into  nega- 
tive ones.  In  their  turn,  they  generate  their  own 
negation,  which  in  due  time  brings  about  the  negation  of 

1  Evolution:  Social  and  Organic,  A.  M.  Lewis,  42. 


THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE  35 

the  previous  negation.  Out  of  the  universal  whirl  more 
condensed  whirls  gradually  arrange  themselves.  JEons 
pass,  and  the  whirls  become  worlds.  Other  aeons  pass, 
and  the  first  organic  life  arises.  Through  the  interac- 
tion of  organic  and  inorganic  life-processes  is  produced 
the  cell-nucleus.  Other  specifications  follow  in  due 
time."  This  gifted  writer  goes  on  to  describe  the  "  other 
specifications  "  that  follow,  illumining  one  after  another 
of  the  cosmic  periods  with  the  light  of  his  biological 
erudition,  finally  reaching  the  Tertiary  period,  when,  he 
says,  "  the  man-ape  becomes  an  ape-man,  the  further  ac- 
centuation of  which  results  in  the  birth  of  man."  2 

This  theory  of  the  universe  leaves  much  to  be  desired. 
The  world  "  created  itself  out  of  itself,"  is  a  statement 
manifestly  offensive  to  the  principles  of  causality,  contra- 
diction, and  identity,  and  cannot  be  sincerely  entertained 
by  a  fault- free  intellect.  To  create  presupposes  exist- 
ence in  the  creator;  to  be  created  presupposes  non-ex- 
istence in  the  created ;  for  a  thing  to  create  itself  presup- 
poses existence  and  non-existence  in  the  same  thing  at 
the  same  time.  For  a  thing  to  be  created  out  of  itself 
presupposes  non-existence  and  existence  at  the  same  time. 
But  passing  the  point  of  origin,  the  Socialist's  cosmos, 
however  created,  becomes  extinct  when  it  "  generates  its 
own  negation."  Whether  it  possesses  "  life  with  all  its 
attributes  "  or  barely  exists,  this  first  move  or  change 
imagined  in  the  Socialist's  world  destroys  it.  The  nega- 
tion of  life  is  death.  The  negation  of  existence  is  ex- 
tinction. 

2  Science  and  Revolution,  E.  Untermann,  175  sq.  to  184.  The 
quotations  are  -verbatim,  but  for  convenience,  extracts  from  sev- 
eral paragraphs  are  run  together. 


36  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

In  truth,  this  entire  theory  is  obviously  open  to  so 
many  valid  and  fatal  objections  that  it  is  unnecessary  to 
enumerate  them.  And  yet  we  are  told  with  a  pious  show 
of  concern  that  all  who  do  not  agree  with  this  theory 
"  are  an  unreasoning  herd  who  merely  acknowledge  their 
mental  poverty,  who  deceive  themselves  and  others  and 
bar  the  progress  of  the  human  mind," 3  that  notwith- 
standing this  theory  "  has  wiped  out  the  line  of  demarka- 
tion  between  mankind,  animals  and  plants  .  .  .  between 
organic  and  inorganic  matter  .  .  .  nevertheless,  ortho- 
doxy, in  the  disguise  of  metaphysics  and  *  true '  religion, 
continues  to  dodge  around  in  the  old  way  and  rest  on  its 
unproven  [sic']  assertions."  *  This  painstaking  philos- 
opher is  not  without  consolation,  however,  for  he  per- 
ceives the  "vital  truth  and  strength"  of  his  philosophy 
"  demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  it  has  been  accepted  by 
the  proletariat  in  all  countries."  5  The  undertaking  to 
combat  an  egotism  so  complacent  as  that  indicated  is  only 
a  waste  of  energy. 

It  is  refreshing  to  turn  to  that  theory  of  the  universe 
which  involves  no  contradictions,  which  has  the  sanction 
of  revelation,  which  is  the  true  theory. 

In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth. 
And  the  earth  was  without  form  and  void,  and  darkness 
was  upon  the  face  of  the  deep ;  And  God  said :  Be  light 
made.  And  light  was  made  (ist  day  of  creation).  And 
God  made  a  firmament  (2nd  day).  God  also  said:  Let 
the  waters  be  gathered  together  in  one  place,  and  let  the 
dry  land  appear.  And  He  said:  Let  the  earth  bring 

8  Science  and  Revolution,  171. 
*  Ibid.,  158,  159.    Cf.  also,  140. 
127. 


THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE  37 

forth.  And  the  earth  brought  forth  the  green  herb,  and 
such  as  yieldeth  seed,  and  the  tree  that  beareth  fruit  (3rd 
day).  And  God  made  two  great  lights:  a  greater  light 
to  rule  the  day,  and  a  lesser  light  to  rule  the  night :  and 
the  stars  (4th  day).  God  also  said  let  the  waters  bring 
forth  the  creeping  creature  having  life,  and  the  fowl  that 
may  fly.  And  God  created  every  living  and  moving  crea- 
ture, which  the  waters  brought  forth,  and  every  winged 
fowl  (5th  day).  And  God  said:  Let  the  earth  bring 
forth  cattle  and  creeping  things,  and  beasts  of  the  earth. 
And  it  was  so  done.  And  He  said:  Let  us  make  man 
to  our  image  and  likeness;  and  let  him  have  dominion 
over  the  whole  earth,  and  every  creature  that  moveth 
upon  the  earth.  And  God  created  man  to  His  own  image 
(6th  day).  On  the  seventh  day  God  rested  from  all  His 
work. 

It  is  not  infrequently  said,  occasionally  by  persons  hav- 
ing some  general  claim  to  recognition,  that  modern  sci- 
ence has  disclosed  certain  particulars  in  which  this  story 
of  creation  is  at  variance  with  the  facts.  But  this  state- 
ment is  not  warranted.  Science  has  gone  far  to  verify 
the  biblical  narrative  of  creation,  but  it  has  not  im- 
peached this  narrative  in  any  particular.  Much  is  made 
of  the  fact  that  it  is  said  God  created  the  world  in  six 
"  days,"  whereas  it  is  beyond  question  that  the  occur- 
rences mentioned  occupied  vast  spaces  of  time.  But  it 
is  obvious  that  the  "  days "  mentioned  by  the  sacred 
writer  do  not  refer  to  the  rising  and  the  setting  of  the 
sun,  for  the  sun  itself  was  not  created  until  the  fourth 
"  day."  Nor  do  they  refer  to  a  revolution  of  the  earth 
on  its  axis,  or  to  the  movement  of  the  stars,  which  is 
our  broadest  conception  of  a  day,  for  the  firmament  was 


38  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

not  created  and  there  was  no  earth  separate  from  the 
"  heaven  and  the  earth  "  until  the  second  "  day."  It  may 
with  point  be  further  remarked  that  it  is  said :  "  And 
on  the  seventh  day  God  rested  from  all  His  work."  This 
prompts  the  question :  How  long  is  the  seventh  "  day  "  ? 
The  "  myth  "  in  the  story  of  the  six-days'  creation,  there- 
fore, is  not  in  the  story,  but  in  the  mind  of  those  who 
burden  it  with  a  construction  that  clearly  was  not  in- 
tended by  the  sacred  writer.  It  is  admitted  by  Hebrew 
scholars  that  the  word  "  Yom,"  which  Moses  used  in  the 
narration,  may  be  construed  as  an  indefinite  "  period  "  of 
time.  "  Day,"  therefore,  as  it  appears  in  this  scriptural 
account,  may  be  said  to  mean  that  period  which  in  the 
light  of  science  is  shown  to  be  the  period  during  which 
each  of  the  creations  mentioned  existed  before  the  next 
order  of  existence  was  brought  into  being. 

But  when  we  go  beyond  the  surface,  we  find  positive 
evidence  of  the  scientific  truth  of  the  scriptural  narra- 
tive of  creation.  In  its  description  of  the  universe  be- 
fore there  was  light,  it  coincides  perfectly  with  accepted 
scientific  theory.  First,  "  God  created  the  heaven  and  the 
earth."  This  was  "  in  the  beginning."  At  that  time,  the 
"  earth  was  without  form  and  void,  and  darkness  was 
upon  the  face  of  the  deep."  This  is  precisely  as  the  scien- 
tist conceives  the  world  to  have  been  at  some  time  in  the 
aeons  past.  Scientists  have  discovered  what  are  called 
"  ether  waves  "  or  "  ether  dust,"  which  is  the  medium 
upon  which  electricity  travels,  the  particles  of  which  are 
finer  than  the  finest  air.  By  a  few  giant  leaps  of  the  mind 
the  earth  is  conceived  as  dissolved,  the  sun  as  broken  up, 
the  stars  as  blotted  out,  the  entire  universe  as  being 
reduced  to  these  "  infinitesimally  minute  particles  of  mat- 


J 


THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE  39 

ter  called  ether-dust,"  without  form,  without  motion, 
without  heat,  or  life,  or  light.  In  fine,  by  dint  of  some 
four  thousand  years  of  research,  science  has  reached  the 
conclusion,  so  long  ago  plainly  expressed  by  the  sacred 
writer,  that  in  the  beginning  the  earth  was  void  and  had 
no  form  and  darkness  was  everywhere.  Here  science 
halts,  helpless.  What  gave  to  matter  its  form,  motion, 
heat,  light  and  life  ?  Science  cannot  answer.  The  scrip- 
tures do :  "  And  God  said :  Be  light  made.  And  light 
was  made."  Science  then  bridges  the  gap.  It  discovers 
that  light  is  only  a  form  of  heat,  heat  only  a  form  of 
motion,  motion  only  a  form  of  matter.  The  sacred  writer 
is  not  supposed  to  have  known  these  facts  discovered  only 
centuries  after  his  time.  But  it  cannot  be  reasonably 
doubted  that  when  Moses  wrote :  "  And  light  was  made," 
he  might  have  written  with  equal  truth,  though  with  less 
sublime  brevity,  that  form,  motion,  heat,  and  light  were 
made  in  that  "  day  "  or  stage  of  creation  first  after  the 
"  beginning." 

Another  salient  feature  of  this  narrative  is  quite  im- 
pressive. It  is  related  that  on  the  fifth  "  day,"  or  in 
the  fifth  stage,  there  was  created  "  every  living  and  mov- 
ing creature  which  the  waters  brought  forth,  and  every 
winged  fowl."  How  did  the  narrator  of  this  story,  writ- 
ten more  than  three  thousand  years  ago,  know  that  fish 
and  fowl  belong  to  the  same  genetic  class  when  scien- 
tists have  only  in  recent  years  discovered  this  fact?  He 
evidently  did  know  it,  since  he  makes  them  both  the  ob- 
ject of  one  creative  act.  The  most  rigid  scrutiny  of  this 
story  of  creation  will  not  bring  out  a  single  particular 
in  which  it  is  at  issue  with  accepted  science.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  only  confirmed  and  illuminated  by  scien- 


40  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

tific  discoveries,  which  from  Newton's  discovery  of  the 
law  of  motion  to  the  latest  demonstration  in  experimental 
embryology,  go  to  point  out  the  indisputable  truth  of  this 
sublime  story  of  the  creation  of  the  world. 

IV.    "  ECONOMIC  DETERMINISM  " 

The  Socialist  theory  of  economic  determinism,  also 
variously  called  "  The  Materialistic  Conception  of  His- 
tory," "  Historical  Materialism,"  "  Social  Evolution," 
"  Marxian  Darwinism,"  etc.,  explains  the  sociological  as 
distinguished  from  the  biological  world.  It  does  not  dis- 
tinguish the  essential  character  of  social  life  from  that 
of  biological  life,  but  only  notes  another  degree  of  evo- 
lutionary development.  This  theory  is  a  continuation  or 
extension  of  the  theory  of  the  universe.  It  is  an  appli- 
cation to  human  society  from  its  beginning  of  the  prin- 
ciples and  the  consequences  of  dialectic  materialistic 
monism. 

This  theory  conceives  man  as  originally  in  a  low  state 
of  savagery,  that  state  having  been  reached  through  an 
infinite  series  of  gyrations,  such  as  Untermann  describes. 
Out  of  millions  of  years  of  this  crazy  whirling,  by  way 
of  the  monkey,  came  man.  Not  man  as  we  perceive  him : 
"  How  noble  in  reason !  How  infinite  in  faculty !  In 
form  and  being  how  express  and  admirable !  "  But  man 
as  a  wild  savage  —  half  man,  half  brute,  a  hungry  ani- 
mal that  lived  by  force  and  reproduced  by  instinct. 
What  a  splendid  concept!  How  puerile  by  comparison 
is  the  thought  that  man  was  made  in  the  image  of  God ! 
How  worthy  the  indignation  of  Engels,  when  he  says  that 
"  to  continue  to  talk  of  a  Creator  is  an  insult  to  the  human 
intelligence  " ! 


THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE  41 

With  this  idea,  Socialism  begins  to  trace  an  imaginary 
history  of  the  human  race.  The  events  in  this  history 
are  not  determined  by  man,  but  by  his  surroundings ;  not 
by  intelligence,  but  by  the  food  supply.  In  this  history, 
God  is  ignored,  free-will  is  denied,  the  very  conscious- 
ness of  human  beings  is  attributed  to  their  material  en- 
vironment. "  It  is  not  the  consciousness  of  men  that  de- 
termines their  lives,"  Marx  assures  us,  "  but  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  the  social  life  that  determines  their  con- 
sciousness." i  Marx  does  not  here  mean  that  men  are 
largely  influenced  by  their  surroundings,  as  every  one  ad- 
mits. He  means,  and  he  at  once  takes  pains  to  say  it, 
that  regardless  of  their  own  volition  men  are  prompted, 
directed,  controlled,  have  their  consciousness  and  hence 
their  thoughts,  words,  and  actions,  determined  by  their 
environment :  "  Men  enter  upon  necessary  relations  in- 
dependent of  their  wills  .  .  .  the  sum  total  of  these  rela- 
tions forms  the  economic  structure  of  society,  the  real 
basis  on  which  all  social  structures  are  built  and  to  which 
social  consciousness  corresponds.  The  method  of  pro- 
ducing a  material  livelihood,  determines  the  social,  po- 
litical and  intellectual  life  in  general." 2  Engels  ex- 
presses this  determinism  thus :  "  The  final  causes  of  all 
social  changes  are  to  be  sought  not  in  men's  brains,  not 
in  a  better  insight  into  truth  and  justice,  but  in  the  modes 
of  production  and  exchange;  not  in  the  philosophy  but 
in  the  economics  of  each  particular  period."  3  He  says 

1  Preface  to  Critique  of  Political  Economy.    Cf.  also,  Capital, 
Vol.  IV,  324. 

2  Ibid. 

3  Socialism,    Utopian    and    Scientific,    94.    Cf.    also,    Engels' 
Duehring,  233. 


42  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

in  another  instance :  "  The  production  of  the  material 
means  of  life  forms  the  foundation  from  which  the  insti- 
tutions of  a  people,  their  law,  art,  religion  even,  have 
been  developed,  and  according  to  which  they  are  to  be  ex- 
plained." * 

If  it  is  possible  to  put  this  fatalistic  theory  in  plainer 
language,  the  Italian  Socialist  Labriola  perhaps  has  done 
so  in  the  following  language :  "  The  production  of  the 
means  of  life,  determines,  in  the  first  place  and  directly, 
all  the  rest  of  the  practical  activity  of  society,  and  the 
variations  of  this  activity  in  the  processus  which  we  call 
history,  the  formation,  friction,  struggles  and  erosions  of 
the  classes,  the  corresponding  law  and  morality;  in  fine, 
that  which  gives  birth  to  the  State  and  that  which  con- 
stitutes it.  It  determines  in  the  second  place  the  tendency 
and  in  great  part  the  objects,  of  imagination  and  thought, 
in  art,  religion  and  science."  5 

The  history  of  the  human  race,  indeed  of  all  things 
animate  or  inanimate,  is  nothing  more  than  the  operation 
of  this  law  of  economic  determinism.  Says  Enrico  Ferri, 
a  gifted  Socialist,  for  many  years  the  recognized  leader 
of  the  Socialist  movement  in  Italy :  "  This  law  is  truly 
the  most  scientific  and  the  most  prolific  sociological  the- 
ory that  has  ever  been  discovered  by  the  genius  of  man. 
It  furnishes  an  explanation  of  social  history  in  its  most 
magnificent  dramas  as  well  as  of  personal  history  in  its 
most  trivial  episodes."  6  These  "  magnificent  dramas  " 
are  divided  by  Socialists  into  Savagery,  Barbarism,  Feu- 

4  The  keynote  utterance  of  Engels'  speech  at  the  grave  of  Marx 
on  the  occasion  of  his  funeral. 

6  Materialistic  Conception  of  History,  201. 
6  Socialism  and  Modern  Science,  159. 


THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE  43 

dalism,  Capitalism.  The  next  will  be  Socialism.  The 
mode  of  social  life  corresponding  to  these  stages  of  hu- 
man development  are  Cannibalism,  Slavery,  Serfdom, 
Wagedom.  Next  will  be  Co-operation.  The  cause  of 
transition  from  one  stage  to  another  is  explained  in  terms 
of  economic  determinism :  Cannibalism,  which  was  the 
natural  mode  of  life  for  man  just  emerged  from  monkey- 
dom,  gave  place  to  Slavery,  because,  with  the  develop- 
ment of  man's  ability  to  produce,  it  was  seen  to  be  more 
profitable  to  put  him  to  work  than  to  eat  him.  Slavery 
was  displaced  by  Serfdom,  because  the  support  of  the 
great  number  of  slaves  who  grew  up,  became  a  burden  to 
their  masters,  especially  during  unproductive  seasons,  and 
it  was  seen  that  more  profit  could  be  secured  by  arrang- 
ing it  so  that  the  slaves  would  have  to  support  themselves 
during  such  times,  which  was  done  by  the  Feudal  system. 
The  transition  to  Wagedom  followed,  when  the  ruling 
classes  perceived  that,  in  spite  of  feudal  laws,  the  ever 
increasing  productive  capacity  of  the  workers  was 
enabling  them  more  than  barely  to  exist.  This  meant 
that  something  of  their  product  was  escaping  the  capi- 
talist's maw,  and  the  system  of  wages  was  instituted  in 
order  to  capture  that  surplus  value.  Such  is  a  "  bird's- 
eye-view  "  of  history  as  a  Scientific  Socialist  describes 
it.  "  There  has  been  progress,"  he  says,  "  but  not 
through  aspiration  toward  righteousness.  The  dominant 
idea  of  progress,  if  it  is  necessary  to  specify  one  in  par- 
ticular, has  been  the  striving  after  individual  enrichment 
rather  than  toward  a  more  perfect  justice.  The  inven- 
tions and  not  the  intentions  of  man  have  been  the  cause 
of  progress."  7 

7  The  State  and  Socialism,  Gabrielle  Deville,  15. 


44  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Economic  determinism  is  found  to  be  no  less  service- 
able in  the  eyes  of  Socialists  for  drawing  a  still  closer 
view  of  history.  If  there  has  been  mechanical  improve- 
ment, it  was  in  order  to  increase  the  workingman's  ca- 
pacity for  production;  if  religion,  it  was  to  induce  him 
submissively  to  yield  his  product  to  an  overlord  while 
he  himself  looked  toward  heaven  for  his  reward ;  if  gov- 
ernment, it  was  to  secure  to  the  ruling  classes  the  ad- 
vantages and  the  gains  they  acquired;  if  insurrection, 
revolution,  war,  conquest,  discovery,  emigration, —  all 
was  for  the  purpose  of  controlling  or  increasing  the  food 
supply.  In  fine,  the  animal  called  Man  has  developed 
from  a  protoplasmic  germ  to  a  Socialist  philosopher  much 
after  the  manner  described  by  Lamarck  in  accounting  for 
the  giraffe's  long  neck,  by  "  stretching  for  something  to 
eat." 

Without  a  doubt  there  are  many  avowing  themselves 
Socialists  who  hesitate  to  surrender  the  high  place  in 
which  art,  law,  science  and  religion  most  of  all  have  en- 
throned the  human  race,  who  feel  a  sensible  aversion  to 
being  stripped  of  autonomy,  intelligence,  and  free  will, 
and  classed  with  "  creeping  things."  But  it  is  neverthe- 
less true  that  "  the  philosophy  of  Socialism,  as  accepted  by 
the  Socialist  parties  of  the  world,  takes  as  its  fundamen- 
tal hypothesis  what  has  been  variously  called  the  material- 
istic conception  of  history,  historical  materialism,  or  eco- 
nomic determinism." 8  The  dialectic  materialism  of 
Marx  and  Engels  has  stamped  its  character  upon  So- 
cialism as  a  movement,  as  a  school  of  thought,  as  a  philos- 
ophy of  history  and  of  life,  and  the  leading  Socialists  of 

8  A.  M.  Simons,  writing  in  the  International  Socialist  Review, 
of  which  he  was  then  editor,  June,  1904. 


THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE  45 

every  country  look  with  contempt  on  all  Socialists  who 
try  to  read  into  their  doctrines  any  teaching  contrary  to 
economic  determinism.  "  It  can  readily  be  proven  af- 
firmatively," writes  a  well-known  American  Socialist, 
"  that  the  whole  theory  of  Modern  Socialism  rests  upon 
the  foundation  of  historical  materialism." 9  "  Marx's 
discovery  that  economic  conditions  constitute  the  deter- 
mining cause  of  the  moral,  judicial,  and  political  phe- 
nomena is  one  of  the  most  important  discoveries  of  mod- 
ern times.  It  is  by  this  and  the  law  of  surplus  value 
that  Socialism  is  reduced  to  a  science." 10  "  Without  the 
materialistic  conception  of  history,"  says  another,  "  sci- 
entific Socialism  would  be  an  impossibility."  "  "  Social- 
ism begins  and  ends  with  this,"  says  Geo.  D.  Herron,  for 
many  years  a  recognized  leader  among  American  Social- 
ists, "  that  the  history  of  the  world  has  been  economic. 
The  world's  sentiments  and  religions,  its  laws  and  morals, 
its  art  and  literature  are  all  rooted  in  the  struggle  for 
control  of  the  food  supply."  12  Spargo  says :  "  The  es- 
sential characteristic  of  the  Socialist  theory  is  the  idea 
variously  termed  '  Economic  Determinism,'  '  Historical 
Materialism,'  '  The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History ' 
and  '  The  Materialistic  Conception  of  History.'  "  13  And 
again :  "  There  have  been  many  forces  urging  mankind 
onward ;  religion  has  played  a  part ;  love  of  country,  cli- 
mate and  soil  have  been  factors ;  but  while  these  fac- 
tors have  exerted  an  influence,  back  of  them  have  been 

9  Socialism,  Positive  and  Negative,  La  Monte,  116. 

10  Socialist  Movement,  Vail,  17. 

11  Passing  of  Capitalism,  Ladoff,  75. 

12  Writing  in  the  Appeal  to  Reason  for  May  i6th,  1903. 

13  The  Socialists,  31. 


46  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

the  material  economic  conditions." 14  In  fine,  "  Eco- 
nomic determinism  is  present  in  all  utterances  of  Amer- 
ican Socialism  and  constitutes  the  conscious  basis  of  the 
movement  in  all  its  phases  and  it  is  employed  in  all  So- 
cialist literature,  from  the  constructive  pages  of  Robert 
Hunter  to  the  revolutionary  pamphlets  of  Debs  and  Han- 
ford."  15 

V.    SUMMARY  AND  ANALYSIS 

It  is  beside  the  question  to  enter  upon  a  systematic 
refutation  of  Socialist  philosophy.  It  will  be  sufficient  to 
the  present  purpose  to  sum  up  by  way  of  analysis  what 
has  preceded  in  this  chapter  and  to  pass  on  without 
further  comment. 

(i) 

The  Socialist  method  of  thought  is  dialectic.  It  is 
based  upon  a  negation  of  the  eternal  verities,  denies  that 
anything  is  fixed,  unchangeable,  final;  affirms  that  noth- 
ing is,  but  everything  is  becoming.  It  disputes  the  recog- 
nized first  principles  of  correct  thought:  the  principle  of 
contradiction,  which  holds  that  nothing  can  at  the  same 
time  exist  and  not  exist,  or  be  true  and  not  true;  the 
principle  of  identity,  which  holds  that  nothing  can  at  the 
same  time  be  itself  and  something  else ;  the  principle  of 
causality,  which  holds  that  nothing  can  be  both  cause  and 

14  Common  Sense  of  Socialism,  71. 

15  American  Socialism  of  the  Present  Day,  Jessie  W.  Hughan, 
ch.  4.    John  Spargo,  writing  the  preface  of  this  work  for  Miss 
Hughan,   speaks   of   her  as   "  a   trustworthy  guide   through   the 
labyrinthian  paths  which  confront  the  serious  student  of  Amer- 
ican Socialism  as  it  is  to-day." 


THE  PHILOSOPHIC  PRINCIPLE          47 

effect  of  the  same  thing.     If  the  dialectic  method  of 
thought  be  correct,  these  principles  are  incorrect. 

(2) 

The  content  of  Socialist  philosophy  is  radically  mate- 
rialistic. It  stands  opposed  to  the  existence  of  mind  as 
distinguished  from  matter ;  holds  mind,  soul,  idea,  to  be  a 
product  of  matter  as  translated  by  the  material  brain  into 
forms  of  thought.  It  is  essentially  monistic ;  denies  the 
existence  of  God,  of  spirit,  of  supernatural  or  immaterial 
life  or  existence. 

(3) 

Socialist  philosophy  is  thus  perceived  to  be  a  system 
of  dialectic-materialistic-monism  that  holds  the  all-com- 
prehensive principle  of  the  universe  to  be  matter,  which 
is  in  a  constant  state  of  inconstancy (!),  an  invariable 
state  of  variation  (!),  a  fixed  state  of  evolution (  !),  which 
advances  without  reference  to  a  standard  towards  a  goal 
that  has  no  existence  (sic). 

(4) 

Considered  in  its  relation  to  the  origin  of  the  universe 
and  of  life,  Socialist  philosophy  disowns  God,  denies  crea- 
tion and  wipes  out  the  distinction  among  inorganic  and 
organic  beings.  It  holds  man  to  be  in  no  wise  different 
from  the  lower  animals,  or  from  inanimate  matter,  except 
in  that  he  represents  an  advanced  state  of  evolutionary  de- 
velopment of  mere  matter. 

(5) 

Considered  in  its  relation  to  human  nature  and  so- 
ciety, this  philosophy  by  its  theory  of  economic  deter- 


48  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

minism  excludes  personal  intelligence,  individual  auton- 
omy, and  free-will.  It  holds  that  man  is  not  self-con- 
scious and  not  intellectually  or  morally  responsible,  his 
thoughts  and  his  actions  being  pre-determined  by  his  eco- 
nomic environment,  which  by  its  play  and  inter-play  is 
constantly  evolving  itself  and  him  toward  some  imaginary 
goal,  where  he  will  "  for  the  first  time  be  really  marked 
off  from  the  rest  of  the  animal  kingdom."  It  excludes, 
also,  both  the  necessity  and  the  occasion  for  constituted 
authority,  whether  human  or  divine,  since  one  cannot  be 
held  amenable  for  conduct  that  is  pre-determined  by  cir- 
cumstances over  which  he  has  no  control.  It  excludes, 
finally,  all  possible  recognition  of  a  Supreme  Being,  of 
a  Sovereign  State,  of  a  just  law,  of  home  or  property,  of 
moral  or  social  rights,  relations  and  duties.1 

1  Should  it  be  said  that  no  Socialist  believes  his  philosophy 
would  carry  him  to  such  execrable  depths  as  are  here  indicated, 
refutation  of  the  statement  is  furnished  by  many  a  bit  of  Social- 
ist literature.  A  notable  one,  as  brutal  as  it  is  plain,  appears  in 
the  Socialist  novel  entitled  Not  Guilty,  by  Robert  Blatchford, 
editor  of  the  leading  Socialist  paper  in  England  and  author  of 
several  standard  Socialist  works,  where  at  page  203  it  is  said : 
"  If  our  heredity  and  our  environment  be  good,  we  must  act 
well,  we  cannot  help  it;  if  they  be  ill,  we  must  act  ill,  we  cannot 
help  it.  Suppose  a  tramp  has  murdered  a  child  on  the  highway, 
has  robbed  her  of  a  few  coppers  and  has  thrown  her  body  into 
a  ditch :  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  tramp  could  not  help  doing 
that?  Do  you  mean  to  say  he  is  not  to  blame  —  not  to  be  pun- 
ished? Yes,  I  mean  to  say  all  of  these  things  and  if  all  of  these 
things  are  not  true,  this  book  is  not  worth  the  paper  it  is  written 
on."  When  we  come  to  study  the  moral  principle  of  Socialism, 
and  the  attitude  of  Socialists  toward  government  and  law,  we 
shall  find  that  this  desperate  attitude  is  not  personal  to  Blatch- 
ford but  characteristic  of  Scientific  Socialists. 


CHAPTER  THREE 
THE  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLE. 

I.      GODLESSNESS 

Socialism  cannot  properly  be  said  to  have  a  religious 
principle.  Religion,  in  its  most  comprehensive  sense,  is 
a  recognition  of  some  relation  between  God  and  man. 
Socialism  excludes  God.  "  In  our  evolutionary  concep- 
tion of  the  universe,"  says  Engels,1  "  there  is  absolutely 
no  room  for  either  a  Creator  or  a  Ruler ;  and  to  talk  of  a 
Supreme  Being  ...  is  a  gratuitous  insult  to  the  feelings 
of  religious  people."  The  conclusion  of  Engels  is  in  per- 
fect accord  with  Socialist  philosophy,  which  in  method 
stands  opposed  to  the  concept  of  the  eternal  and  in  con- 
tent denies  the  existence  of  the  spiritual;  and  in  accord 
also,  with  the  theory  of  creative  evolution  and  the  doc- 
trine of  economic  determinism,  which  empty  God  from 
the  universe  and  cut  off  the  possibility  of  human  free 
will. 

On  its  negative  side,  Socialism  is  profoundly  atheis- 
tic. Throughout  the  breadth  and  intricacy  of  its  sea  of 
literature,  which  would  school  mankind  to  a  new  life  in 
art,  science,  and  government,  there  is  scarce  a  page  but 
in  one  way  or  another  implies,  if  it  does  not  teach,  unbe- 
lief in  God.  So  pronounced  is  this  characteristic  of  un- 

1  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,  19. 

49 


50  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

belief  that,  though  there  are  many  atheists  who  are  not 
Socialists,  the  Socialists  who  are  not  atheists  are  indeed 
few.  A  well-known  English  Socialist  says :  "  I  cannot 
remember  a  single  instance  of  a  person  who  is  at  once  a 
really  intelligent  Socialist  and  an  orthodox  believer."  2 
Morris  Hillquit  estimates  the  percentage  of  atheists  among 
the  representative  Socialists  in  America  as  ninety-nine  in 
a  hundred.3  A  Socialist  daily  paper  of  New  York  says : 
"  Socialism  has  no  meaning  unless  it  is  atheistic,  unless 
it  declares  we  do  not  need  so-called  divine  help." 4 
"  There  can  be  no  doubt,"  writes  the  editor  of  another 
New  York  daily,  "  that  the  study  of  Socialism  undermines 
religious  belief.  The  theory  of  economic  determinism 
alone,  if  thoroughly  grasped,  leaves  no  room  for  belief 
in  the  supernatural." 5  August  Bebel,  until  his  recent 
death  the  leading  exponent  of  Socialism  in  Germany,  said : 
"  I  am  convinced  that  a  study  of  Socialism  inevitably 
leads  to  atheism.  We  wish  the  republic  in  politics  and 
atheism  in  religion."  6  Belfort  Bax,  Socialism's  English 
"  philosopher,"  says :  "  Socialism  has  well  been  de- 
scribed as  a  new  conception  of  the  world  presenting  itself 
...  in  religion  as  atheistic  humanism.  .  .  .  The  estab- 
lishment of  society  on  a  Socialistic  basis  implies  the  defi- 
nite abandonment  of  all  theological  cults."  7  Enrico  Ferri 
says  frankly :  "  The  impairment  of  the  belief  in  God  is 
one  of  the  most  powerful  factors  in  the  extension  of  So- 

2  Socialism  and  Character,  Jos.  Leatham,  92. 

3  Official  Report  of  Proceedings  of  1908  National  Convention  of 
Socialist  Party  (U.  S.),  pp.  191-205. 

*  Volksseitung,  Sept.  9,  1901. 

5  The  Call,  March  2,  1911. 

6  Quoted  by  Goldstein,  Socialism,  126. 

7  Religion  of  Socialism,  B.  Bax,  81. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLE  51 

cialism."  8  Liebknecht  puts  this  thought  more  forcibly : 
"  It  is  our  duty  as  Socialists  to  root  out  the  belief  in  God 
with  all  our  zeal,"  he  is  quoted  as  saying.9  La  Monte  says 
that  "  Socialist  philosophy  proves  conclusively  that  the 
realization  of  the  ideals  of  Socialism  involves  the  atrophy 
of  religion."  10  "  This  philosophy  once  accepted,"  says 
Leatham,  "  the  belief  in  God  with  all  that  belief  implies, 
is  without  a  raison  d'etre.  There  is  nothing  left  for  the 
deity  to  do."  1X 

We  unhesitatingly  subscribe  to  the  conclusions  reached 
by  these  writers.  When  the  existence  of  the  universe  is 
accounted  for  by  evolution,  the  idea  of  God  becomes  an 
utter  vanity.  When  the  consciousness  of  men  is  at- 
tributed to  their  material  surroundings,  the  idea  of  hu- 
man free  will  is  seen  as  a  cruel  deceit.  When  "  personal 
immortality  has  resolved  itself  into  personal  evolution,"  12 
the  thought  of  life  after  death  becomes  an  idle  dream. 

But  without  the  existence  of  free  will  in  man,  or  the 
concept  of  God,  or  the  hope  of  eternal  life, —  what  is 
religion?  If  religion  is  not  what  it  is,  it  may  be  any- 
thing one  wishes  it  to  be.  If  it  is  not  the  recognition 
of  some  relation  between  God,  the  Creator,  and  man,  the 
creature,  a  relation  involving  the  responsibility  of  man 
and  necessitating  a  free  will  in  him  and  requiring  a  fu- 
ture existence  for  him, —  if  religion  does  not  predicate 
these  truths,  then  gravitation,  or  chemical  affinity,  or 
electricity,  or  motion,  or  light  may  be  called  religion. 

8  Socialism  and  Modern  Science,  63. 

9  Social  Unrest,  J.  G.  Brooks. 

10  Socialism,  Positive  and  Negative,  89. 

11  Cf.  Socialism,  D.  Goldstein,  115. 

12  Science  and  Revolution,  Untermann. 


52  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Atheism  robs  religion  of  all  meaning  and  makes  its  prac- 
tice a  foolish  waste  of  effort.  Socialism  being  primarily 
atheistic,  is  primarily  irreligious. 

II.      HUMANITARIANISM 

Socialism  is  more  than  mere  atheism,  it  is  dialectic  ma- 
terialistic monism.  Atheism  is  the  negation  of  God.  So- 
calism  is  the  negation  of  God  plus  the  affirmation  of  crea- 
tive evolution.  The  atheist  waves  God  out  of  the 
universe  and  indifferently  turns  away  from  the  void  made. 
The  Socialist  peers  into  the  void  and  discerns  the  self- 
created  seed  of  humanity  buried  some  hundred  million 
years  back  in  a  self -created  protoplasm.  The  atheist  says 
there  is  no  God  because  he  cannot  put  his  ringer  on  Him. 
The  Socialist  says  there  is  no  God  because  there  is  no  need 
for  Him.  The  attitude  of  these  two  toward  religion  is 
quite  different :  the  former  ignores  its  meaning ;  the  latter 
gives  it  a  meaning  entirely  new. 

On  its  positive  side,  Socialism  is  what  Bax  terms 
"  atheistic  humanism."  Ladoff  calls  it  "  a  humanitarian 
movement  —  broad  as  humanity  and  deep  as  the  mystery 
of  life."  *  Many  people  regard  this  as  religion.  Many 
believe  that  in  man's  humanity  to  man  is  embodied  all  that 
is  essential  to  religion.  Some  even  who  vaguely  believe 
in  God,  as  vaguely  believe  that  "  To  do  unto  others  as  you 
would  have  others  do  unto  you  "  is  the  purest  of  religion ; 
the  breadth  and  depth  of  their  religious  principle  is  com- 
passed by  the  much  used  phrase,  "  The  universal  brother- 
hood of  men." 

All  such  teachings  that  leave  God  out  of  consideration 
are  comprised  in  the  term,  humanitarianism.  Humani- 

1  Passing  of  Capitalism,  53. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLE  53 

tarianism  is  not  religion.  As  such  it  is  not  even  an  ap- 
proach toward  religion.  Religion  is  a  conscious  recogni- 
tion of  the  relation  of  man  to  his  Creator,  a  recognition 
that  would  be  required  if  there  were  but  one  man  in  the 
world.  Humanitarianism  is  sentiment.  It  contemplates 
the  natural  only,  not  the  supernatural.  It  sees  man  only 
as  an  animal  of  high  degree,  and  regards  his  feelings, 
emotions,  passions,  but  not  his  soul  made  in  the  image 
of  God.  "  The  brotherhood  of  men,"  therefore,  in  a 
strictly  humanitarian  sense,  means  but  little  more  than  a 
kindly,  peaceful,  contented,  and  mutually  helpful  herd  of 
animals, —  a  great  deal  more  capable,  it  is  true,  but  having 
no  greater  purpose  or  destiny.  It  is  only  in  contempla- 
tion of  his  soul  that  man  is  rightly  considered  as  having  a 
destiny  higher  than  a  mere  animal.  "  The  brotherhood  of 
men,"  in  a  sense  that  postulates  the  Fatherhood  of  God, 
is  sentiment  flowered  into  religion,  but  humanitarianism 
which  ignores  God  is  only  sentiment. 

This  sentiment  is  exploited  by  Socialists  to  a  high 
degree.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  their  materialistic 
philosophy  excludes  the  possibility  of  a  Creator,  they 
declare  that  the  Socialist  movement  is  a  religion  because  it 
proposes  to  establish  society  on  a  basis  where  "  the  sweet 
spirit  of  comradeship  will  blossom  forth  like  the  fabled 
rose  of  unfading  beauty."  2  "  Materialist  and  scoffer  that 
he  is,"  says  one  of  them,  "  it  is  the  Socialist's  mission  to 
teach  truth  to  the  recreant  religious  organizations." 3 
"  Socialism,"  says  another,  "  is  —  not  merely  ought  to  be, 
but  is  —  a  religious  movement."  4  Another  says :  "  So- 

2  Where  We  Stand,  J.  Spargo,  22. 

3  A  Christian  View  of  Socialism,  G.  H.  Strobell,  30. 

*  Socialism  and  Primitive  Christianity,  W.  T.  Brown,  4. 


54  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

cialism  is  a  religion.  As  it  gains  strength  it  will  become  a 
spiritual  passion  —  not  a  cry  for  rights,  but  a  call  to 
righteousness."  5  And  another :  "  Socialism  is  religion 
in  its  broadest  sense,  that. is,  leaving  aside  beliefs  about 
God  and  the  immortality  of  the  soul  —  all  matters  of  a 
supernatural  character  .  .  .  Socialism  brings  religion 
down  from  the  heaven  of  clouds  to  the  earth  of  men."  8 
Of  the  simon-pure  Socialists  who  boldly  deny  God,  it 
must  be  said  that  if  they  believe  their  teachings  to  be 
religious,  they  have  given  a  new  meaning  to  the  term 
religion.  Of  those  who  still  cling  to  a  concept  of  God 
and  yet  indulge  this  belief,  it  must  be  said  that  they  do 
not  grasp  the  old  meaning  of  the  word  religion.  These 
latter,  once  identified  with  the  Socialist  movement,  seldom 
fail  to  realize  the  futility  of  attempting  to  reconcile  So- 
cialism with  religious  belief.  But  almost  invariably,  when 
they  do  realize  this,  instead  of  repudiating  Socialism,  they 
repudiate  religious  belief,  and  in  the  end  develop  a  hostil- 
ity toward  all  religion. 

III.     HOSTILE  ATTITUDE 

The  thorough-going  Socialist  is  not  merely  non-re- 
ligious, he  is  utterly  anti-religious.  He  antagonizes  re- 
ligion in  all  its  forms.  According  to  his  belief,  "  all  re- 
ligions the  world  has  ever  seen  have  been  imposed  to  pre- 
vent the  operation  of  the  people's  will ;  "  1  "  The  priests  of 
all  religions  have  been  throughout  all  phases  of  human 
history  the  most  potent  allies  of  the  ruling  classes  in  keep- 

6  Why  I  Am  a  Socialist,  Geo.  D.  Herron,  30. 
6  Common  Sense  of  Socialism,  J.  Spargo,  157 ;  cf .  also,  Where 
We  Stand,  loc.  cit.  supra. 
1  Geo.  D.  Herron,  writing  in  The  Socialist  Spirit,  January,  1903. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLE  55 

ing  the  masses  pliant  and  submissive  under  their  yoke ;  "  2 
"  Religious  rites  and  ceremonies  were  instituted  to  im- 
press on  primitive  people  a  respect  for  private  prop- 
erty ;  "  3  "  Religion  is  the  expression  of  those  who  live  off 
other  people  and  who  use  it  for  the  purpose  of  compelling 
these  others  to  support  them ;  "  4  "  Its  function  is  to  chlo- 
roform the  workers,  to  make  docile  wage-slaves  of  them, 
patient  and  contented  with  their  lot  in  this  world  while 
expecting  a  glorious  reward  in  the  next ;  "  5  "  Religion, — 
Catholic,  Protestant,  Methodist,  Lutheran,  Episcopalian, 
or  any  other, —  is  and  has  always  been  a  stumbling  block 
and  bar  to  progress  and  civilization ;  "  6  "  It  is  the  great 
engine  for  enslaving  the  minds  of  men,  for  binding  man- 
kind in  superstition,  ignorance  and  slavery ;  "  7  "  It  is  per- 
haps the  most  powerful  of  the  means  for  maintaining  class 
society  by  inducing  the  members  of  the  subject  class  to 
act  contrary  to  their  own  interests  and  in  accordance  with 
that  of  their  masters ; " 8  "  All  religion  is  servile,  but 
Christianity  is  the  most  servile  of  the  servile ; " 9  "  It 
preaches  humility,  forbearance,  submission,  meekness, — 
all  virtues  of  slavery  and  of  bondage."  10 

Believing  thus,  Socialists  are  not  true  to  themselves  or 
to  their  avowed  mission  unless  they  are  hostile  to  religion, 
and  in  particular  to  Christianity,  the  most  perfect  religion. 

2  Socialism  and  Modern  Science,  Ferri,  63. 

3  Evolution  of  Private  Property,  Paul  Laf argue,  58. 

4  Geo.  D.  Herron,  in  Appeal  to  Reason,  May  16,  1903. 

5  The  Social  Democrat,  March  15,  1903. 

6  Daily  People,  June  5,  1903. 

7  The  Commonweal,  Vol.  4,  No.  137. 

8  The  People,  Feb.  8,  1900. 

9  Philosophical  Essays,  J.  Dietzgen,  122. 

10  Passing  of  Capitalism,  Ladoff,  49. 


56  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

What  are  we  to  think,  then,  when  the  Socialists,  Victor  L. 
Berger  and  Winfield  R.  Gaylord,  address  an  open  letter 
to  a  distinguished  churchman  in  which  they  say :  "  We 
repeat  most  emphatically,  Socialism  advances  no  teaching 
'  touching  matters  of  religion  '  "  ?  "•  What  of  the  Social- 
ist platform  in  which  it  is  declared  that  Socialism  has 
nothing  to  do  with  religion?  But  whether  they  believe 
their  teachings  against  religion  true  or  not,  there  is  pur- 
pose in  them.  "  When  the  heaven  above  appears  as  noth- 
ing more  than  a  huge  falsehood,  men  will  seek  to  create 
for  themselves  a  heaven  below,"  12  think  the  Socialists,  and 
truly,  and  to  establish  an  earthly  paradise  men  may  be 
expected  to  bend  all  their  energies,  stopping  for  no  law, 
human  or  divine,  respecting  no  institution,  man-made  or 
God-given,  that  might  stand  in  their  way.  This  will 
naturally  bring  them  within  the  Socialist  movement,  it 
being  the  only  movement  with  an  aim  so  pretentious  and 
a  disrespect  so  wanton. 

Hence,  policy  unites  with  principle  to  develop  in  So- 
cialism a  hostility  toward  religious  belief  and  all  that  such 
belief  implies.  "  We  must  wage  an  unrelenting  war 
against  the  Church,"  said  the  Belgian  Socialist  Deputy,  L. 
Furnemont ;  "  we  must  attack  her  because  her  economics, 
her  politics,  her  ethics  are  contrary  to  our  ideal,  because 
she  is  the  only  reactionary  force  which  has  any  strength 
and  which  keeps  men  in  voluntary  slavery,  so  that  Chris- 
tian workingmen  have  lost  all  idea  of  trying  to  be  free."  13 

11  Social  Democrat  of  Milwaukee,  Oct.  12,  1904. 

12  Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reforms,  W.  P.  D.  Bliss,  896.    Bliss, 
with  Herron  and  Professor  Ely,  founded  the  Christian  Socialists, 
in  1898. 

13  Socialist  Democrat,  Aug.  15,  1903.    One  not  practiced  in  the 


THE  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLE  57 

This  rings  true  with  Liebknecht's  exhortation  to  Social- 
ists to  root  out  the  faith  in  God  with  all  their  might. 

IV.     MALICIOUS  ATTITUDE 

Socialism  is  not  satisfied  with  its  hostile  attitude  toward 
religion,  it  rises  to  a  malicious  attitude.  As  this  is  the 
culminating  stage  of  development,  there  are  fewer  Social- 
ists who  reach  it.  All  out  and  out  Socialists  are  atheists, 
but  not  all  are  materialists;  neither  are  all  materialists 
hostile  to  religion,  nor  yet  are  all  malicious  who  are  hostile. 
This  development  is  a  kind  of  evolutionary  process  that 
brings  to  the  top  stage  only  such  persons  as  are  able  to 
overcome  the  resistance  of  all  anti-Socialist  influence  and 
environment,  the  thorough-going,  "  scientific  "  leaders  of 
the  movement,  who  like  Ibsen's  Nora  break  completely 
with  the  past,  "  taking  nothing  and  sending  back  for  noth- 
ing, not  even  jewels."  Hence,  while  in  the  lowest  So- 
cialist camps  we  only  find  indifference  toward  religion, 
and  among  those  straggling  in  and  out  of  the  Socialist 
lines  even  reverence  for  it,  in  those  who  occupy  the  high- 
est places,  who  stand  as  the  leaders  and  the  teachers  of 
the  movement,  we  find  a  deep  and  determined  hatred  for 
religion.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  the  development  of 
the  "  Socialist  mind."  Marx,  Engels,  Dietzgen,  Bebel, 
Blatchford,  Bax,  Loria,  Labriola,  Ladoff,  Adler,  Aveling, 
Ferri,  Herron,  Brown,  and  numbers  of  others,  both  living 
and  dead,  founders  and  champions  of  Scientific  Socialism, 

gymnastics  of  Socialist  thought  would  say  that  a  voluntary  act, 
even  of  submission,  postulates  freedom.  One  is  not  free  unless 
free  to  submit.  "  Voluntary  slavery "  conveys  about  as  much 
meaning  as  a  "  round  square."  It  is  a  fair  example  of  Social- 
ists' "  scientific "  thought  and  expression. 


58  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

are  striking  examples  of  this  development  and  of  the  deep- 
seated  malice  toward  religion  in  which  it  finally  cul- 
minates. Witness  the  following  excerpts  taken  at  random 
from  the  general  propaganda : 

"  Christianity  to-day  stands  for  all  that  is  lowest  and 
basest  in  human  life.  It  is  the  most  degrading  of  all  our 
institutions  and  the  most  brutalizing  in  its  effect  on  the 
common  life.  The  subtle  methods  of  the  Church  in 
destroying  the  manhood  of  the  soul  are  more  to  be  dreaded 
by  the  Socialist  movement  than  the  world's  standing 
armies."  *  "  If  ever  in  the  history  of  the  world  any  in- 
stitution was  finally  and  completely  discredited,  it  is  the 
religious  institution  whose  putrid  and  decaying  carcass 
here  in  the  twentieth  century  menaces  the  lives  of  men. 
...  It  stands  before  the  world  as  the  foe  to  research,  as 
an  enemy  of  truth  and  a  purveyor  of  falsehood,  an 
ethically  monstrous  and  morally  impotent  factor  in  human 
society." 2  "  Any  church  you  can  name,  Protestant, 
Catholic,  orthodox  or  liberal,  means  one  thing  and  oiily 
one  —  the  manufacture  of  hypocrites."3  "The  truth  is, 
we  have  no  such  thing  as  intellectual  honesty  in  the  sphere 

1  Geo.  D.   Herron,  writing  in   The   Worker  for  March,   1902. 
The  article  of  which  this  extract  is  the  keynote,  was  considered 
such  a  choice  Socialist  morsel  that  it  was  republished  by  The 
Wage  Slave,  July,   1908.    Herron  espoused   Socialism  while  in 
the  Congregationalist  ministry,  announcing  himself  as  a  Christian 
Socialist,  but  it  was  only  a  short  time  until  he  repudiated  Chris- 
tianity. 

2  Wm.  T.  Brown,  in  The  Social  Crusader,  July,  1901 ;  repub- 
lished in  The  Advance.     Brown  is  another  ex-minister  of  a  Chris- 
tian religion  who  exemplifies  the  line  of  development  of  all  those 
who  attempt  to  harmonize  Socialism  with  religious  belief. 

3  Socialism  and  Primitive  Christianity,  Brown,  5. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLE  59 

of  religion.  We  have  not  even  succeeded  in  getting  a 
conception  that  has  any  moral  quality."  4  "  In  Christian- 
ity we  see  not  only  a  supporter  of  the  greatest  evils,  but  a 
system  that  by  its  fundamental  principles  vitiates  human 
thought."  5  "  There  is  no  wrong  however  terrible  which 
has  not  been  justified  by  Christianity,  no  movement  for 
human  liberty  which  has  not  been  opposed  by  it." 6 
Blatchford  characterizes  religion  as  the  "  curse  of  hu- 
manity "  ;  Marx,  as  the  "  degradation  of  human  nature  " ; 
Bebel,  as  the  "  sentiment  of  a  heartless  world  "  ;  Leatham, 
as  the  "  unthinkable  absurdity  " ;  Kautsky,  as  the  "  fan- 
tasy of  weak-minded  persons  and  hypocrites  "  ;  Lafargue, 
as  the  "  nightmare  of  the  human  race  " ;  Ladoff,  as  the 
"  morbid  idealization  of  human  wretchedness  "  ;  Dietzgen, 
as  the  "  piteous  moan  of  impotency  that  stultifies  and 
destroys  human  society."  Lafargue  says  that  even  the 
savages  and  barbarians  have  been  corrupted  through 
Christianity's  giving  to  them  "  alcoholism,  syphilis,  and 
the  Bible." 7  Bebel  declared  that  Christianity  sprang 
from  "  the  dunghill  of  social  corruption  in  the  Roman 
Empire."  8  Blatchford  describes  God  as  a  "  fickle,  jeal- 
ous, dishonorable,  immoral,  vindictive,  barbarous,  cruel, 
savage,  and  ignorant  monster."  d 

4  Socialist  Spirit,  June,  1902 ;  Brown  again. 

5  Dr.  Aveling,  paramour  of  Karl  Marx's  daughter,  writing  in 
the  Socialist  magazine  Today;  quoted  by  Goldstein,  op.  cit. 

6  John  Spargo,  in  The  Comrade,  May,  19x13. 
''Social  and  Philosophic  Studies,  173. 

8  Glossen,  Bebel,  8. 

9  God  and  My  Neighbor,  49.     In  the  preface  to  this  book,  the 
publisher,  Chas.  H.  Kerr,  head  of  the  largest  Socialist  publish- 
ing house  in  the  world  and  himself  author  of  several  Socialist 
works,  says :    "  I  recommend  this  book  by  Robert  Blatchford  as 


60  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

The  immeasurable  depths  of  hatred  exposed  by  these 
blasphemous  utterances  are  so  painful  to  contemplate  that 
one  hastens  to  escape  all  thought  of  them.  They  evince 
a  spirit  of  diabolical  origin,  a  spirit  that  revels  in  belch- 
ing forth  foul  epithets  against  God  and  religion  and  in 
surrounding  all  things  sacred  with  an  atmosphere  in  which 
only  malice  and  iniquity  are  able  to  thrive. 

V.    RELIGION  AND  SOCIALISM  CONTRASTED 

A  distinction  made  by  many  Socialists  between  religion 
and  creeds  serves  their  propaganda  purposes  to  advan- 
tage. When  these  Socialists  are  taxed  with  their  anti- 
religious  utterances,  they  claim  that  they  do  not  refer  to 
religion  but  to  creeds.  Religion,  they  say,  has  been  per- 
verted by  churchmen  and  theologians  in  the  interest  of  the 
capitalist  classes,  and  it  is  the  perversion  in  the  form  of 
established  creeds,  and  not  religion,  against  which  they 
inveigh.  This  distinction  gives  rise  to  others  and  occa- 
sions several  classes  of  Socialists,  each  of  which  attacks 
religion  from  a  different  angle  or  in  a  different  way.  It  is 
beyond  the  scope  of  this  study  to  consider  these  several 
classes  in  detail,  but  on  account  of  them,  it  seems  not  ir- 

one  of  the  clearest,  sanest,  most  sympathetic  and  most  helpful 
discussions  of  the  deep  and  vital  problem  of  religion  that  it  has 
ever  been  my  good  fortune  to  read."  The  following  extract  is 
a  fair  sample  of  the  clarity,  sanity,  sympathy,  and  helpfulness  so 
highly  praised :  "  I  deny  the  existence  of  a  Heavenly  Father, 
the  efficacy  of  prayer,  the  providence  of  God,  the  truth  of  the 
Bible.  I  do  not  believe  a  miracle  was  ever  performed,  or  that 
Christ  was  divine,  or  that  he  died  for  men  or  ever  rose  from  the 
dead.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  he  never  existed.  I  do  not 
believe  there  is  a  God.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  heaven  and  I 
scorn  the  thought  of  hell." 


THE  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLE  61 

relevant  to  consider  the  essential  religious  elements  that 
underlie  all  creeds  and  to  contrast  with  these  the  pertinent 
elements  essential  to  Socialism  as  such. 

On  account  of  its  substance  and  form,  religion  properly 
falls  under  a  threefold  division:  (i)  Natural  Religion, 
(2)  Revealed  (supernatural)  Religion,  and  (3)  Chris- 
tianity. 

I.  Natural  Religion. 

In  its  most  primitive  concept,  religion  is  the  recogni- 
tion of  a  being  superior  to  and  supreme  over  man.  This 
idea  comes  to  man  with  the  dawn  of  reason.  All  men 
possess  it.  A  classic  phrase  of  Plutarch  reads :  "  If  we 
travel  over  the  world,  we  may  find  cities  without  walls, 
without  theatres  or  schools,  without  art  or  science,  but  a 
city  without  a  temple  no  man  ever  saw.  We  may  find 
tribes  without  cities,  but  there  never  existed  a  tribe  with- 
out some  form  of  religion."  In  this  primitive  idea  are 
rooted  all  forms  of  worship,  the  true  as  well  as  the  false, 
its  right  development  being  true  religion  and  its  wrong 
development  being  false,  the  primitive  concept  being  the 
same, —  a  supreme,  omniscient  being  who  is  the  author  of 
man's  being  and  the  arbiter  of  his  destiny.  In  no  sense 
can  religion  be  predicated  of  a  worship  or  a  teaching  that 
is  not  rooted  in  the  concept  of  such  a  being.  When  any 
human  aspiration  transcends  the  sphere  of  humanity,  if 
it  reaches  toward  God,  it  is  religion.  When  sentiment  is 
limited  to  humanity,  or  human  impulse  aspires  no  higher 
than  humanity,  there  is  not  religion. 

Socialism  rests  its  foundation  and  its  hope  in  humanity 
alone.  It  makes  no  pretense  of  lifting  man  above  his 
environment  or  above  himself;  hence,  it  is  not  in  any 
sense  a  supernatural  aspiration  and  it  can  no  more  be 


62  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

called  a  religion  than  can  politics.     Socialism  is  senti- 
ment.1 

2.  Revealed  Religion. 

God  is  infinite.  Man  is  finite.  Only  the  simplest 
aspect  of  the  relation  between  them  can  be  grasped  by 
man's  unaided  reason.  Natural  religion,  therefore,  is 
crude  and  imperfect :  to  raise  it  toward  perfection,  revela- 
tion from  God  is  required,  not  to  correct  reason,  but  to 
complement  it.  Revelation  is  the  refining  principle  at  the 
bottom  of  religious  development.  It  comes  from  God 
Who  is  infinitely  perfect ;  and  by  virtue  of  it  the  growth 
of  religion  is  constantly  toward  perfection.  Thus  man, 
his  shortcomings  being  supplemented,  his  weaknesses  be- 
ing supported,  his  unreasoned  errors  being  corrected, — 
is  lifted  by  revelation  above  himself, —  is  drawn  from  the 
midst  of  his  imperfections  toward  a  perfect  state  that 
corresponds  not  to  man's  idea  but  to  the  idea  of  God  Who 
is  infinite  perfection.  Revelation  opens  up  to  man  a  new 
field  of  knowledge,  new  obligations  and  a  new  destiny. 
It  introduces  to  him  the  supernatural  world  and  explains 
to  him  how  he  will  actually  inhabit  that  world  and  how 
his  place  there  will  be  secured  and  fixed. 

If  Socialism  is  not  an  approach  toward  natural  religion 
it  is  still  less  an  approach  toward  revealed  religion.  If 
it  is  not  acceptable  as  a  substitute  for  the  crude  religious 

1  The  Superstition  Called  Socialism,  is  the  title  of  a  book  by 
G.  B.  DeTunzlemann,  but  in  a  sense  this  is  a  misnomer.  Super- 
stition is  the  blind  groping  of  ignorant  man  for  something  by 
which  to  escape  his  environment,  the  religious  impulse  directed 
toward  something  other  than  God.  It  is  a  kind  of  false  religion. 
The  term  is  not  applicable  to  Socialism  except  to  characterize  its 
blind,  unreasoned  teaching. 


THE  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLE  63 

belief  that  springs  from  human  reason,  it  is  far  less  ac- 
ceptable as  a  substitute  for  that  belief  which  is  rooted  in 
the  truths  that  God  has  revealed.  Socialism  is  subject  to 
all  of  the  imperfections  of  mankind  and  it  has  nothing  to 
counteract  them  or  to  free  mankind  from  them.  It  is 
compassed  on  all  sides  by  erring  human  nature,  by  its 
faults,  its  frailties,  its  passions,  its  wrong-doings,  and  it 
points  to  nothing  beyond  human  nature  by  which  these 
can  be  corrected.  Socialism  cannot  ennoble  or  lift  up  hu- 
manity. It  cannot  elevate  or  inspire.  It  cannot  refine 
or  purify.  It  is  chained  by  the  iron  chain  of  materialism 
to  the  pillar  of  its  own  limitations. 
3.  Christianity. 

The  perfection  of  God's  revelation  to  man,  with  its 
unsearchable  mysteries,  its  incomprehensible  love,  its 
eternal  promises,  is  summed  up  in  the  word  Christianity, 
which  is  belief  in  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  Chris- 
tianity is  the  perfect  religion.  Christ  is  the  perfect  revela- 
tion. He  is  the  Word  made  flesh.  Through  the  In- 
carnation of  His  divine  Son,  the  revelation  of  God  to 
man  culminates  in  the  mystical  union  of  God  ^vith  man. 
That  union  confers  upon  mankind  a  dignity  that  is  in- 
comprehensible, a  blessing  that  is  immeasurable.  Chris- 
tianity is  the  magic  crucible  that  turns  into  gold  the  pain 
and  suffering  of  the  human  race, —  the  sorrowful  are 
comforted,  the  lowly  are  ennobled,  the  humble  are  exalted, 
the  poor  are  enriched,  the  helpless,  afflicted,  and  infirm  are 
lifted  up  and  supported.  It  is  a  transcendent  brother- 
hood, born  of  the  ineffable  Fatherhood,  which  links  all 
men  of  clean  heart  to  one  another  and  to  God,  and  by  a 
diffusion  of  divine  grace  that  makes  all  things  equal  in 
the  end  it  makes  up  for  the  natural  differences  among 


64  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

human  beings,  equalizes  inequalities,  and  brings  to  a 
balance  the  privileges  and  the  privations  in  human  life. 
Christianity  is  the  most  sublime  and  efficacious  scheme  for 
the  justification  and  final  happiness  of  mankind  that  it  is 
given  the  human  intellect  to  conceive.  Indeed,  in  the  first 
instance  only  God  could  conceive  this  scheme  so  divinely 
adapted  to  the  fulfillment  of  the  inspirations  and  the  hopes 
that  mark  the  noble  impulses  of  the  human  soul. 

The  contrast  of  Socialism  with  Christianity  is  painfully 
striking.  In  place  of  the  Immanent  God,  it  substitutes 
matter,  and  in  place  of  the  Son  of  God,  a  development  of 
matter.  For  the  blessing  of  divine  grace  it  gives  us 
"  bread  alone  " ;  and  for  the  human  soul,  animal  instincts. 
Christianity  springs  from  four  main  angles,  the  immor- 
tality of  the  soul,  the  Fall  of  man,  the  divinity  of  Christ 
and  the  Atonement.  Socialism  springs  from  a  point,  the 
seat  of  the  world  of  sensuality, —  man's  belly,  to  which, 
as  though  to  a  god,  it  refers  "  all  things  under  the  sun." 
Christianity  is  love.  By  virtue  of  the  love  they  inspire, 
the  teachings  of  Christ  have  overcome  the  world, —  pas- 
sion has  been  subdued,  appetite  dulled,  suffering  ennobled 
and  privation  blest.  "  There  are  Faith,  Hope,  and  Love, 
but  the  greatest  of  these  is  Love."  Socialism  is  hatred. 
Hatred  is  engendered  by  its  doctrines ;  it  is  the  strength 
of  the  Socialist  movement,  which  grows  with  each  base 
passion  it  touches,  gains  impetus  with  each  lawless  im- 
pulse it  feels,  and  sweeps  blindly  on  toward  the  destruc- 
tion of  civilization. 

But  perhaps  the  most  marked  contrast  readily  seen 
between  Socialism  and  Christianity  appears  in  their  re- 
spective aims.  The  aim  of  Christianity  is  to  attain 
Heaven,  and  the  way  to  this  glorious  destiny  is  "  The 


THE  RELIGIOUS  PRINCIPLE  65 

Royal  Road  of  the  Cross."  "  First  the  Cross  and  then 
the  Crown,"  lays  the  priest-bard  of  the  Southland  as 
he  touches  the  two  notes  that  sound  the  Christian  Chord, 
—  sacrifice  and  reward.  Love  means  sacrifice ;  and  sacri- 
fice means  reward.  Heaven  is  the  reward  of  him  who 
loves  and  is  willing  to  suffer,  of  him  who  in  love  acknowl- 
edges the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  who  in  privation  and 
sacrifice  strives  through  Christ  to  bring  about  the  brother- 
hood of  man.  The  aim  of  Socialism  is  not  to  attain 
Heaven  but  to  set  up  a  heaven  of  its  own.  Not  admitting 
a  life  hereafter,  it  demands  a  paradise  here.  It  hopes  to 
attain  this  aim  through  "  the  solidarity  of  the  human 
race,"  that  is,  the  realization  of  a  state  of  society  where 
the  individual  member  will  be  absorbed  by  the  social 
"  organism,"  where  the  human  soul  will  "  speedily  de- 
personalize itself,  in  will,  habit  and  desire,  of  its  phantom 
personality  for  the  truer,  larger  personality  of  society." 
Science  has  turned  the  world  into  a  neighborhood;  So- 
cialism will  turn  it  into  a  brotherhood ;  and  there  will  be 
nothing  to  hinder  the  development  of  the  "  social  organ- 
ism "  to  such  a  degree  of  perfection  that  the  "  individual 
is  altogether  banished  from  life,  and  things  which  are  by 
nature  private,  such  as  eyes  and  ears  and  hands,  have 
become  common,  and  all  men  express  praise  and  blame, 
and  feel  joy  and  sorrow,  on  the  same  occasions." 

Contrasting  the  practical  effects  of  Christianity  and 
Socialism  on  human  action,  we  find  that  while  the  former 
supplies  an  efficient  motive  for  initiative,  the  latter  is 
wholly  inadequate  in  this  respect.  Man  is  a  self-conscious 
being.  He  submits  or  acts  only  when  prompted  by  suffi- 
cient motives  of  self-interest,  real  or  apparent,  immediate 
or  remote.  The  Christian  is  furnished  with  a  powerful 


66  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

motive  for  submission  or  action,  even  though  they  may 
mean  suffering  and  sacrifice  for  the  time.  He  hopes  ul- 
timately to  attain  to  the  perfect  and  eternal  happiness  of 
Heaven,  not  for  others,  but  for  himself,  and  on  this  ac- 
count he  is  willing  to  undergo  all  privation,  bear  all  bur- 
dens, suffer  all  pains,  unmurmuringly,  to  undertake  the 
most  painful  and  humiliating  duty  or  make  the  most  costly 
and  consummate  sacrifice,  voluntarily.  For  Heaven  is  his 
goal,  and  the  happiness  of  Heaven  no  "  eye  hath  seen, 
nor  ear  heard,  nor  hath  it  entered  into  the  heart  of  man  to 
know."  Socialism  can  hold  out  no  hope  so  inspiring.  It 
is  buried  beneath  the  mountain  of  human  infirmities,  and 
for  suffering  and  sacrifice  it  can  offer  no  reward  that  is 
not  freighted  with  infirmity.  It  demands  of  the  individual 
deliberate  self-effacement  at  which  normal  self-conscious- 
ness rebels.  The  sacrifice  of  the  Christian  is  for  a  time 
only,  therefore  it  is  both  voluntary  and  real.  But  the 
sacrifice  of  a  Socialist  must  be  forever,  therefore  it  must 
be  enforced  or  can  only  be  pretended.  Christianity  in- 
fuses into  the  hearts  of  men  the  fire  of  hope ;  Socialism 
strikes  into  their  hearts  the  iron  of  despair.  Adhering  to 
the  teachings  of  Christianity  men  become  devoted,  loyal, 
patient,  good;  following  the  teachings  of  Socialism  they 
become  desperate. 


CHAPTER  FOUR 
THE  MORAL  PRINCIPLE 

I.     MORALS  DISTINGUISHED  FROM  ETHICS 

With  respect  to  morals,  Socialism  is  marked  by  its  lack 
of  principle.  This  defect  follows  from  the  absence  of  a 
religious  principle  in  Socialism.  For  morals  depends  on 
religion  in  the  same  manner  that  religion  depends  on 
God.  In  many  particulars  morals  and  religion  are  indis- 
tinguishable, and  in  no  particular  are  they  more  widely 
separated  than  practice  is  separated  from  belief.  Social- 
ism has  an  ethical  principle,  but  not  a  moral.  The  too 
common  error  of  confusing  morals  with  ethics  should  be 
avoided  from  the  outset.  Primarily,  morals  refers  to 
right  relations  between  God  and  man;  ethics,  to  right 
relations  between  man  and  man ;  hence,  morals  is  closely 
allied  with  religious  belief,  while  ethics  is  limited  to  social 
life.  In  practice,  this  distinction  is  not  so  perceptible. 
Just  as  a  given  belief  may  embody  both  a  divine  and  a 
social  element,  so  a  given  act  may  have  both  a  moral  and 
an  ethical  aspect.  This  brings  about  a  confusion  of 
terms  that  results  in  many  errors.  Such  confusion  is 
quite  prevalent  among  Socialists,  and  as  a  consequence, 
notwithstanding  Socialism  essentially  excludes  a  moral 
principle,  Socialists  are  heard  on  every  hand  to  say  that 
it  embodies  the  only  perfect  moral  system  that  has  ever 
been  proposed  to  the  world.  This  claim  must  be  rejected 

67 


68  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

point  blank.  Being  devoid  of  religious  principle,  Social- 
ism cannot  embody  a  moral  principle.  Under  conceiv- 
able, though  impossible,  conditions  its  ethics  might  be 
desirable,  but  never  moral.  God  is  wanting,  and  without 
God  there  is  no  moral  basis. 

II.    FREE  WILL  A  CONDITION  OF  MORALITY 

It  must  be  said  further  that  Socialism  is  essentially 
non-moral,  not  only  because  it  substitutes  ethics  for 
morals,  but  because  it  denies  the  existence  of  human  free 
will  which  is  a  necessary  condition  of  human  accounta- 
bility. To  hold  one  accountable  and  yet  not  free,  or  to 
declare  one  free  and  yet  not  accountable,  does  violence  to 
every  man's  sense  of  justice.  "  Thou  Shalt,"  and  "  Thou 
Shalt  Not,"  are  the  two  phrases  that  sum  up  the  burden 
of  all  law,  human  and  divine,  and  they  postulate  in  man 
a  freedom  of  choice.  It  goes  with  the  saying  that  an 
indispensable  condition  of  moral  action  is  free  will. 

Another  distinction  is  properly  made  here.  Morality 
is  not  the  same  as  goodness.  The  difference  lies  in  just 
this  particular  of  free  will.  Goodness  is  the  quality  of 
being  adapted  to  the  end.  A  machine  is  good  if  it  does 
the  work  it  was  made  to  do.  Poison  is  good  if  it  is 
deadly,  and  though  by  chance  it  kills  a  man,  it  is  good 
poison.  When  God  created  the  world,  "  He  saw  that  it 
was  good."  But  morality  is  more  than  goodness.  It  is 
the  goodness  of  a  self-conscious  free  agent.  It  is  the 
self-conscious  and  self-willed  adaptation  of  a  free  being 
to  the  end  for  which  he  was  made. 

The  philosophy  of  Socialism,  in  its  basic  principle  (ma- 
terialism) as  well  as  in  its  structural  outline  (economic 
determinism),  stands  in  unalterable  opposition  to  even  the 


THE  MORAL  PRINCIPLE  69 

possible  existence  of  self-consciousness  and  free  will.  It 
thus  uproots  the  only  conceivable  norm  of  human  ac- 
countability. It  will  not  prove  amiss  to  consider  in  this 
connection  the  views  of  some  leading  Socialists  on  the 
question.  In  a  little  book *  that  was  hailed  by  the  Chicago 
Daily  Socialist  (5/4-1909)  as  "the  very  best  general 
statement  of  the  up-to-date  Socialist  position  that  is  in 
existence,"  Kark  Kautsky  treats  the  question  of  free  will 
at  length  and  explains  in  the  following  terse  language  why 
Socialism  and  free  will  must  be  held  incompatible :  "  If 
the  will  is  free  and  can  shape  things  as  it  wishes,  then  it 
can  also  shape  the  direction  of  economic  development. 
Then  it  is  impossible  to  discover  any  guarantee  that  we  are 
growing  into  Socialism.  It  is  impossible  to  determine  any 
kind  of  historical  development  whatever,  and  no  scientific 
knowledge  of  society  is  possible."  In  another  of  his 
writings,  Kautsky  for  a  moment  all  but  admits  the  exist- 
ence of  free  will.  "  For  action,"  he  says,  "  the  feeling  of 
freedom  is  an  indispensable  psychological  necessity." 2 
This  is  only  a  feeling,  however,  not  an  actuality,  he  tells 
us.  Subjectively,  according  to  this  eminent  Socialist 
philosopher,  man  feels  that  he  is  free  as  to  the  future,  but 
when  the  future  is  past,  he  knows  he  was  not  free.  And 
even  this  unreal  psychological  feeling  "  is  no  monopoly  of 
man,  but  holds  also  of  all  other  animals,  who  have  free- 
dom of  the  will  in  the  same  sense  that  man  has,  namely,  as 
a  subjective  feeling."  Another  Socialist  says :  "  The 

1  Road  to  Power,  by  Kautsky,  said  in  the  appreciation  men- 
tioned to  be  "  recognized  as  the  foremost  living  Marxian  scholar." 

2  Ethics  and  the  Materialistic  Conception  of  History,  Kautsky, 
59;   cf.   also,   Philosophical  Essays,  Dietzgen,   164,  and   Isadore 
Ladoff,  in  International  Socialist  Re-view,  June,  1908,  740. 


70  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

will  does  not  choose  of  itself,  as  was  supposed  by  the 
inventors  of  FREE  WILL,  that  product  of  the  impotency 
of  psychological  analysis  not  arrived  at  maturity.  Voli- 
tions are  the  result,  first,  of  necessity,  and  then  of  all  that 
precedes  them  up  to  the  very  elementary  organic  im- 
pulses." 3  "If  our  heredity  and  our  environment  be 
good,"  says  another,  "  we  must  act  well,  we  cannot  help 
it.  If  they  be  bad  we  must  act  ill,  we  cannot  help  it."  * 
La  Monte  says :  "  The  Marxist  absolutely  denies  the 
freedom  of  the  will.  Every  human  act  is  inevitable."  5 
The  consequence  of  this  fatalism  is  frankly  accepted  by 
Spargo,  who,  in  discussing  the  evolution  of  economic  con- 
ditions in  its  relation  to  the  class  struggle  and  its  attend- 
ant wrongs,  says :  "  It  follows  that  individuals  are  not 
responsible."  6 

III.    END  OF  MAN  THE  BASIS  OF  MORALITY 

In  order  correctly  to  appraise  the  moral  goodness  of 
human  action,  it  is  necessary,  in  addition  to  postulating 
free  will,  to  have  a  correct  idea  of  the  end  or  the  purpose 
of  human  existence.  All  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  real 
purpose  of  man's  existence,  but  of  the  many  views  on  this 
question,  it  is  pertinent  to  consider  only  two  here:  that 
of  the  Socialist  and  that  of  the  (Christian)  theist.  It 
might  seem  that  only  the  Socialist  concept  is  pertinent,  and 
this  would  be  true  if  that  were  the  true  concept.  The 
Socialist  concept  is  the  only  erroneous  concept  that  is  per- 
tinent. The  true  concept  is  pertinent  to  define  the  error 

3  Materialistic  Conception  of  History,  Labriola,  115. 
*Not  Guilty  (a  novel),  Robert  Blatchford,  193. 

5  Socialism,  Positive  and  Negative,  LaMonte,  65. 

6  The  Socialists,  John  Spargo,  60. 


THE  MORAL  PRINCIPLE  71 

of  that  not  true.  For  error  is  judged  by  truth,  not  truth 
by  error.  Truth  is  not  held  to  be  true  because  it  differs 
from  error,  but  error  is  declared  to  be  false  because  it 
differs  from  truth.  All  truths  coincide  and  fit  perfectly 
while  error  jars  with  the  universe.  The  jarring  note 
does  not  apprise  us  of  truth,  but  of  error.  If  the  gen- 
eral harmony  is  not  kept  fixed  resounding  in  the  mind, 
the  discordant  note  may  not  strike  harshly  on  the  ear 
and  will  not  be  so  readily  detected.  Therefore,  in  order 
not  to  be  deceived  by  a  statement  of  the  Socialist  con- 
cept, we  should  first  consider  the  true  concept  of  the  end 
of  man. 

Man  is  made  to  love  and  serve  God  in  this  world  and 
to  be  forever  happy  with  Him  in  the  world  to  come. 
Love  and  service  of  God  denotes  willing  acceptance  of 
His  acts,  obedience  to  His  laws,  submission  to  His  will. 
It  means  recognition  and  consideration  for  God  and  the 
whole  of  His  creation,  for  mankind  in  particular,  since 
man  is  the  highest  and  noblest  of  earthly  beings.  There 
is  no  call  here  for  proofs  that  this  is  the  true  conception 
of  man's  end.  Proofs  are  on  record  in  a  multitude  of 
forms.  It  is  Socialism  that  is  before  the  bar  of  reason 
now ;  theism  has  stood  trial,  is  in  possession,  and  its  case 
is  closed  for  all  who  are  not  intellectual  anarchists  until 
refutations  not  in  the  record  have  been  established. 

The  Socialist  conception  of  the  end  of  man  is  that  he 
is  made  to  serve  society.  Society  is  the  supreme  being  of 
Socialism.  In  fact,  Socialism  claims  that  society  made 
man,  gave  him  consciousness  and  on  this  basis  built  up 
the  social  structure  with  its  appointments,  religion,  politics, 
jurisprudence,  etc.  Accordingly,  man's  end  is  attained 
when  his  life  conforms  to  the  social  life,  when  his  interests 


72  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

merge  with  the  social  interests,  when  his  will  is  identified 
with  the  social  will ;  in  fine,  when  his  whole  existence  is 
absorbed  in  the  existence  of  society.  Society,  as  here 
predicated,  means  not  one's  friends  and  neighbors,  not 
one's  f  ellowmen  individually,  but  the  "  organism  "  called 
society ;  that  is,  society  as  a  being  whose  parts  or  members 
are  dependent  upon  it  for  their  existence  and  their  wel- 
fare similarly  to  the  manner  in  which  the  arm  is  depend- 
ent upon  the  human  body  or  human  organism. 

There  is  a  seeming  parallel  between  these  two  concepts 
in  respect  to  social  relations.  But  it  is  only  seeming. 
Social  relations  are  involved  in  the  theistic  concept,  but  not 
essentially  so.  This  concept  would  hold  good  if  there 
existed  but  one  man  in  the  universe, —  he  would  owe  love 
and  service  to  God  who  created  him.  But  since  social 
relations  exist,  they,  too,  must  be  conformed  to  man's 
true  end.  Hence  the  commands,  not  to  kill,  not  to  steal, 
not  to  covet,  not  to  bear  false  witness,  and,  to  feed  the 
hungry,  clothe  the  naked,  visit  the  sick,  bury  the  dead, — 
flow  naturally  from  and  are  obligatory  in  the  theistic  con- 
cept. Hence  also,  what  are  termed  natural  rights  — 
life,  liberty,  property,  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  which  hold 
good  as  against  society  and  of  which  no  innocent  person 
can  be  justly  deprived  on  any  account.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Socialist  concept  holds  social  relations  to  be  in 
themselves  the  end  of  man,  so  that  on  the  hypothesis  that 
only  one  man  existed  there  would  be  no  purpose  for  his 
existence.  It  recognizes  no  right,  not  even  the  right  to 
life,  to  be  superior  to  the  claim  of  society.  Society  might 
with  impunity,  nay,  it  is  required  to  cut  off  all  useless  and 
especially  harmful  members.  Just  as  amputation  of  an 
injurious  or  useless  member  of  the  body  is  necessary  for 


THE  MORAL  PRINCIPLE  73 

the  welfare  of  the  human  organism,  so  the  removal  of  all 
injurious  or  useless  members  of  society  is  necessary  for 
the  welfare  of  the  social  "  organism."  Hence,  the  direct 
contrary  of  the  theistic  commands  may  be  required  by  the 
Socialist  concept,  and  indeed,  must  be  when  it  is  put  into 
effect;  e.g.,  the  crippled,  the  old,  the  infirm, —  all  who, 
whether  in  mind  or  body,  are  not  a  help  but  a  hindrance 
to  society, —  would  be  at  the  mercy  of  any  member  of 
society  who  discovered  that  they  were  a  drawback ;  prop- 
erty in  the  hands  of  persons  who  would  not  make  the 
most  of  it  for  the  social  welfare  would  be  taken  from  them 
by  those  who  would ;  the  wife  of  one  not  perfectly  fitted 
to  produce  to  the  best  advantage  of  society  would  be 
claimed  by  one  better  fitted,  etc.  It  is  clear  that  there  is 
not  and  cannot  be  anything  in  common  between  these  two 
concepts  of  the  end  of  man. 

The  conclusions  reached  from  the  premises  are  un- 
avoidable :  First,  because  it  excludes  all  relations  higher 
than  social  relations,  which  call  not  for  morals  but  for 
ethics,  Socialism  is  at  best  non-moral;  next,  because  it 
denies  the  existence  of  human  free  will,  it  is  also  non- 
ethical  ;  finally,  because  it  holds  a  false  conception  of  the 
end  of  man,  it  is  positively  opposed  to  all  true  good. 

IV.    SOCIALIST  CONCEPTION  OF  MORALITY 

Still,  it  is  claimed  that  Socialism  teaches  the  highest 
morality ;  that,  while  Socialists  "  have  no  respect  for  cur- 
rent morality,  it  is  none  the  less  true  that  they  have  a 
growing  morality  of  their  own  —  a  morality  that  has 
already  emerged  from  the  embryonic  stage."  *•  It  is, 

1  Socialism,  Positive  and  Negative,  LaMonte,  63. 


74  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

therefore,  proper  that  consideration  be  given  to  the  So- 
cialist concept  of  morality,  although  in  view  of  what  we 
have  seen  it  is  not  strictly  necessary.  The  preceding 
suggestions  will  facilitate  a  more  ready  understanding  of 
the  character  and  import  of  this  concept  as  it  is  variously 
defined  by  representative  Socialists,  and  it  is  with  this 
object  that  a  review  of  their  expressions  has  been  so  far 
deferred.  And  now,  only  a  cursory  review  of  them  may 
be  undertaken.  There  are  but  few  Socialists  who  have 
written  anything  who  have  not  expressed  their  views  on 
this  subject  and  to  bring  them  together  here  would  make 
this  part  of  our  study  exceed  all  reasonable  limits.  How- 
ever, there  is  an  unusual  unanimity  of  opinion  among  So- 
cialists on  this  matter.  With  the  exception  of  the  self- 
styled  Christian  Socialists,  who  are  of  small  consequence 
in  the  Socialist  movement,  the  Socialists  of  all  countries, 
with  substantial  uniformity  in  thought  and  with  very 
little  variety  in  language,  have  endorsed  the  moral  con- 
cept expressed  thus  by  Spargo :  "  Whatever  advances 
the  interests  of  society  is  right ;  whatever  militates  against 
those  interests  is  wrong.  We  bring  heaven  back 
from  the  clouds  of  mythology  to  the  earth  of  men. 
A  thing  is  right  or  wrong  not  by  reason  of  one  God  or 
many  gods  or  the  prophets  of  gods,  but  according  as  it 
affects  the  society  in  which  we  live.  We  do  not  ask 
Moses,  or  Christ,  or  Mohammed,  or  Confucius,  Mrs. 
Eddy,  John  Wesley  or  the  Pope,  is  this  right  ?  but  we  ask 
how  will  it  affect  the  class  to  which  I  belong  " ;  2 —  or  by 
Ladoff :  "  Morality  or  ethics  is  a  system  of  conduct  of 
the  members  of  a  social  group.  Their  conduct  is  regu- 
lated or  controlled  by  the  group  in  its  collective  interests. 

2  Where  We  Stand,  J.  Spargo,  19. 


THE  MORAL  PRINCIPLE  75 

Acts  injurious  to  the  interests  of  the  group  are  condemned 
as  immoral  and  acts  useful  to  the  interests  of  the  group 
are  praised  as  moral  " ; 3 —  or  by  Hillquit :  "  Morality, 
in  a  more  advanced  society  comes  to  a  large  extent  to 
signify  conduct  favoring  the  economic  efficacy  and  pros- 
perity of  the  nation  " ; 4 —  or  by  May  Wood  Simon :  "  In 
each  and  every  stage  of  society  the  test  of  any  system  of 
ethics  lies  in  the  proof  that  it  does  or  does  not  make  for 
the  progress  of  the  race.  By  progress  here  is  meant  an 
increasing  control  by  man  over  the  forces  of  nature  "  ;  5 — 
or  by  Chas.  H.  Kerr :  "  In  this  throbbing  life  in  which 
we  work,  what  is  the  moral,  the  right  thing  for  us  to  do, 
for  us  who  hear  the  groans  of  slavery  and  who  see  the 
light  of  freedom  just  ahead?  If  we  accept  the  moral 
standards  that  we  find  around  us  we  are  riveting  our  own 
fetters.  Let  us  then  reject  them  once  for  all.  In  the 
better  social  order  which  is  coming  that  action  will  be 
right  which  is  for  the  good  of  all  "  ;  6 —  or  by  John  Bur- 
rowes :  "  So  you  have  no  word  at  all  in  your  philosophy 
for  the  conduct  and  the  beautifying  of  the  private  (indi- 
vidual) soul?  Hardly  a  word,  sir,  save  one  of  advice  to 
depersonalize  itself  speedily  of  its  phantom  personality 
and  get  into  the  truer,  larger  personality  of  society."  7 

As  to  natural  rights,  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness,  the  following  are  expressive  of  the  Socialist 

3  International  Socialist  Review,  February,  1905,  449. 

4  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  59. 

6  International  Socialist  Review,  December,  1900,  336. 

6  Morals  and  Socialism,  17. 

7  International  Socialist  Review,  January,  1902,  489. 

It  will  be  observed  that  all  of  these  authorities  are  American 
Socialists,  which  is  remarked  because  tacticians  often  try  to  shift 
unwelcome  criticism  against  foreign  Socialists. 


76  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

attitude :  "  It  must  be  confessed  that  the  revolutionary 
worker  has  absolutely  no  respect  for  natural  rights  —  in- 
cluding the  right  of  property."  8  "  The  theory  of  natural 
rights  is  a  figment  of  the  immature  capitalist  brain.  All 
thoughtful  persons  know  that  there  are  no  natural  rights, 
that  the  phrase  '  natural  rights '  is  a  contradiction  in 
terms."  9  "  The  doctrine  of  natural  rights  is  one  that 
probably  more  than  any  other  distinguishes  the  old  meta- 
physical school  of  political  economy.  It  is  a  fallacy  that 
is  refuted  by  all  the  teachings  of  history,  and  no  person 
with  any  valid  claim  to  a  knowledge  of  Socialism  would 
teach  it."  10 

The  Socialist  concept  of  morality  is  so  extraordinary, 
and  to  understand  it  is  so  essential  to  a  proper  appraisal 
of  the  Socialist  movement,  that  we  feel  impelled  to  ex- 
tend the  line  of  authorities  expressing  the  Socialist 
view. 

"  It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  ideas  of  right  and 
wrong  are  not  absolute  but  relative,  not  fixed  but  fluid, 
changing  with  the  changes  in  our  mode  of  production. 
Morality  varies  not  only  with  time  but  with  social  atti- 
tude. Ethics  simply  registers  the  degrees  by  which  the 
ruling  class  stamps  with  approval  or  brands  with  censure 
the  effect  of  human  conduct  upon  the  welfare  of  that 
class.  Morality  is  in  its  very  essence  a  class  institution  — 
a  set  of  rules  of  conduct  enforced  or  inculcated  for  the 
benefit  of  a  class."  "  "  Each  social  stage  of  develop- 
ment has  its  own  condition  of  production  and  each  like- 

s  Socialism,  Positive  and  Negative,  LaMonte,  64. 

9  The  Call,  March  15,  1909. 

10  The  Chicago  Socialist,  July  u,  1903. 

11  Socialism,  Positive  and  Negative,  59. 


THE  MORAL  PRINCIPLE  77 

wise  has  its  own  code  of  morals,  which  is  but  the  reflec- 
tion of  the  social  conditions.  That  is  moral  which  is 
usage."  12  "  Standards  of  moral  value  which  served  very 
well  in  the  past  are  valueless  and  vicious  now.  Morali- 
ties of  yesterday  are  immoral  to-day  and  destructive  of  the 
liberty  and  integrity  of  the  soul."  13  "  There  has  never 
yet  been  a  permanent  or  a  universal  code  of  morals. 
Like  every  other  social  institution,  it  has  been  a  product 
of  the  changes  in  material  surroundings,  geographical  lo- 
cations and  different  methods  of  gaining  a  livelihood."  14 
"  There  can  be  no  eternal  ethical  or  moral  code.  The 
material  interests  of  the  ruling  class  of  every  age  are 
reflected  in  their  moral  code,  and  this  code  will  be 
changed,  modified  and  adapted  to  suit  the  character  of 
production,  even  though  the  change  be  so  rapid  as  to 
reverse  in  a  single  year  the  code  of  the  previous  year."  15 
"  The  prevailing  moral  system,  in  common  with  all  social 
institutions,  has  its  foundations  in  the  economic  condi- 
tions and  relations  of  men  in  society.  The  one  hope  of 
the  world  is  in  the  victory  of  the  proletariat,  but  this 
victory  can  only  be  won  by  a  proletariat  permeated  with 
the  sense  of  solidarity ;  and  the  workingman,  imbued  with 
this  sense  of  proletarian  solidarity,  will  be  a  living  in- 
carnation of  the  new  morality.  As  fast  as  they  become 
class-conscious  they  will  recognize  and  praise  as  moral  all 
conduct  that  tends  to  hasten  the  revolution  —  the  triumph 
of  their  class,  and  they  will  unhesitatingly  condemn  as 
immoral  all  conduct  that  tends  to  prolong  the  dominance 

12  Woman,  Bebel,  16. 

13  Herron,  International  Socialist  Review,  January,  1901,  434. 

14  May  Wood  Simons,  Id.,  December,  1900,  337. 
18  J.  Oneal,  The  Worker,  Dec.  2,  1905. 


78  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

of  the  capitalist  class."  16  "  Social  morality,  the  responsi- 
bility of  man  to  the  life  of  man,  will  take  the  place  of 
theological  morality,  the  responsibility  of  man  to  some 
abstract  idea."  17 

"  In  earlier  stages  of  society,  morality  affirmed  itself  as 
the  solidarity  of  the  individual  with  his  kin,  his  gens,  his 
tribe,  his  people.  The  interest  of  the  individual  was  ab- 
solutely identified  with  that  of  the  race.  His  personal 
telos  was  identified  with  the  social  whole  into  which  he 
entered.  At  the  same  time  that  he  had  no  interest 
independent  of  the  race,  he  had  no  duties  outside  that 
race.  .  .  .  The  individual  is  sunk  in  the  society,  knows 
and  cares  for  no  existence  outside  of  society.  This  is 
from  the  Socialist  point  of  view  the  highest  morality 
which  up  to  now  has  been  generally  prevalent  in  the 
world."  18  "  The  principle  of  morality  is  the  principle  of 
human  association  and  the  principle  of  human  association 
is  progress.  Social  Democracy  is  nothing  else  and  desires 
nothing  else,  but  social  and  co-operative  progress  and  that 
is  the  true  moral  perfection."  10  "  In  Socialism  ethics 
become  politics  and  politics  become  ethical,  while  religion 
means  the  higher  and  more  far-reaching  aspect  of  that 
ethical  sense  of  obligation,  duty,  fraternity,  which  is  the 
ultimate  bond  of  every-day  society."  20  "  The  morality 
of  the  final  organization  simply  consists  in  acts  and  ab- 
stention from  acts  that  make  for  social  cohesion." 21 

16  Socialism,  Positive  and  Negative,  64. 

17  Useful  Work  vs.  Useless  Toil,  Wm.  Morris,  20. 

18  Ethics  of  Socialism,  Belfort  Bax,  9;  cf.  also  26. 

19  Philosophic  Essays,  J.  Dietzgen,  166. 

20  Ethics,  Bax,  29. 

21  Economic  Foundations  of  Society,  Loria,  13. 


THE  MORAL  PRINCIPLE  79 

"  Only  the  lack  of  social  impulses  and  virtues  which  man 
has  inherited  from  the  social  animals,  is  to  be  regarded  as 
absolute  immorality."  22 

It  is  believed  that  the  foregoing  excerpts  from  the  writ- 
ers and  teachers  who  mold  the  Socialist  movement  fairly 
express  the  Socialist  concept  of  morality.  We  shall  not 
attempt  a  refutation  of  the  views  expressed.  If  we  bar 
from  consideration  the  simpler  commands  of  God,  the 
good  or  bad  character  of  a  given  human  act  becomes  a 
matter  too  complicated  for  our  comprehension.  It  in- 
volves a  knowledge  and  consideration  of  all  truth  and  all 
science,  and  we  are  unable  to  lay  claim  to  such  great 
learning.  If  only  that  be  good  which  will  advance  the 
interests  of  the  social  group  to  which  we  belong,  then  to 
determine  the  good  in  a  given  action  no  fact,  past,  pres- 
ent or  future,  that  is  related  to  that  action,  may  be  left 
out  of  consideration,  for  that  very  fact  might  on  the 
instant  be  more  important  than  all  those  considered.  Un- 
der such  a  supposition,  good  or  bad  conduct  is  absolutely 
undeterminable.  Having  made  this  supposition  a  real 
condition  for  themselves  by  excluding  the  All-Knowing 
God,  it  is  no  surprise  that  Socialist  philosophers,  over- 
whelmed by  the  difficulty  of  their  situation,  have  cut 
the  Gordian  knot  by  disclaiming  for  man  the  faculty  of 
free  choice.  If  there  were  no  God,  one  can  imagine  no 
curse  that  would  so  completely  blast  man's  happiness  as 
the  faculty  and  consequently  the  duty  of  free  choice  where 
the  knowledge  of  a  God  were  necessary  to  choose  aright. 
In  his  Notes  on  Ingersoll,  the  late  Rev.  L.  A.  Lambert 
makes  some  suggestions  that  are  valuable  in  this  connec- 

22  Ethics  and  the  Materialistic  Conception  of  History,  Kautsky, 
92. 


8o  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

tion.  The  moral  concept  announced  by  Ingersoll  is  so 
similar  to  that  of  Socialists  and  Dr.  Lambert's  "  Com- 
ment "  is  a  refutation  so  complete  as  to  both  that  we  quote 
at  length. 

"  Ingersoll:  Everything  is  right  that  tends  to  the  hap- 
piness of  mankind.  And  everything  is  wrong  that  in- 
creases the  sum  of  human  misery.  If  the  consequences 
are  good,  so  is  the  action. 

"  Comment:  The  assassin  of  Garfield  justified  his  act 
on  this  very  principle.  His  last  words  on  the  scaffold 
were,  '  Only  good  can  come  of  it.'  According  to  this 
standard  the  quality  of  a  human  act  cannot  be  determined 
until  all  of  its  consequences  are  known.  But  the  full  con- 
sequences of  no  act  can  be  known  by  man,  for  the  conse- 
quences of  an  act  become  in  their  turn  the  causes  of  other 
acts  whose  consequences  are  the  causes  of  still  other  acts, 
and  thus  on  indefinitely.  To  determine  the  quality  of  an 
act  one  must  know  whether  the  sum  of  all  these  conse- 
quences is  good  or  bad;  or,  if  any  one  consequence  can 
indicate  the  nature  of  the  act,  it  is  necessary  to  know  which 
of  this  limitless  multitude  does  so.  Now,  no  man  can 
know  this,  and  hence,  no  man  can  know  the  nature  of  any 
given  act.  Your  standard,  then,  affords  man  no  practical 
information.  It  is,  therefore,  utterly  worthless.  .  .  .  Are 
you  not  afraid  that  your  philosophy  may  put  a  bee  into  the 
head  of  some  religious  fanatic,  who,  misled  by  your  teach- 
ing, might  consider  his  killing  of  you  a  virtuous  and  holy 
act,  foolishly  imagining  that  the  result  of  it  might  prove 
beneficial  to  society  and  religion?  I,  as  a  Christian,  con- 
demn that  act  beforehand  as  a  crime ;  but  you  cannot,  be- 
cause according  to  your  theory  the  act  cannot  be  said  to 
be  evil  until  its  consequences  are  known.  As  the  conse- 


THE  MORAL  PRINCIPLE  81 

quences  of  your  death  cannot  be  known,  it  follows  that 
your  murder  might  be  a  good  or  bad  act.  The  Christian 
holds  not  only  that  murder  is  a  crime,  but  that  even  the 
intention,  determination  or  resolve,  though  unexecuted,  is 
a  crime  deserving  of  hell.  Thus  the  Christian  religion 
strikes  at  the  root  of  this  murderous  propensity,  and  kills 
the  dragon  before  he  issues  from  his  den  in  the  secret 
heart.  The  doctrine  that  acts  take  their  nature  from  their 
result  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  denial  of  God. 
It  destroys  individual  responsibility  and  is  subversive  of 
all  government  and  social  order.  It  denies  all  appeal  to 
right  and  destroys  not  only  justice  but  the  idea  of  jus- 
tice." 23 

V.    THE  MORAL  LAW  OF  SOCIALISM 

The  foregoing  considerations  lead  up  to  the  questions : 
Whence  comes  the  moral  law  ?  What  are  its  commands  ? 
Having  a  moral  concept,  Socialists  thereby  admit  the  ex- 
istence of  a  moral  law  and  it  is  well  to  inquire  into  the 
source  from  which  this  law  springs  and  the  character  it 
assumes.  It  does  not  come  from  God,  for  Socialists  deny 
God;  nor  from  civil  authority,  for  they  hold  that  to  be 
constitutionally  immoral.  It  does  not  come  from  man's 
consciousness,  for  they  hold  consciousness  to  be  the  prod- 
uct of  environment,  and  in  part  itself  the  moral  law. 

Dietzgen  says :  "  No  divine  oracle ;  no  inner  voice  or 
deduction  from  the  brain  shall  teach  us  moral  truth."  x 
Labriola :  "  Ethics  does  not  place  itself  nor  does  it  en- 
gender itself.  There  is  no  such  a  universal  foundation 
of  ethical  relations  as  that  spiritual  entity  which  has  been 

23  Notes  on  Ingersoll,  Chap.  XXI. 
1  Philosophical  Essays,  150. 


82  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

called  the  moral  conscience.  This  abstract  entity  has  been 
eliminated  by  criticism."  2  Ka-utsky :  "  Not  from  our 
organs  of  knowledge  comes  the  moral  law  and  the  moral 
judgment ;  there  need  not  be  bound  up  the  higher  faculty 
of  intelligence."  3 

Whence,  then,  the  moral  law?3a 

Hillquit  says :  "  The  moral  sense  is  a  product  of  the 
processes  of  evolution  of  man,  gained  in  his  struggle  for 
existence  precisely  in  the  same  manner  as  his  intellectual 
faculties."  *  Untermann  says :  "  The  social  relations  of 
man  are  subordinate  to  the  infinite  interdependence  of 
every  atom  in  the  world  process  and  we  need  no  ethical 
code  for  the  understanding  of  this  process."  5  Dietzgen 
says :  "  Morality  is  based  on  the  general  social  need. 
With  the  growth  of  that  need  morality  grows.  We  find 
the  fact  undeniable  that  with  the  growth  of  productive 
forces  the  social  instinct  grows,  human  association  be- 
comes broader  and  deeper,  morality  becomes  more 
moral."  6  Chas.  K.  Franklin  says :  "  I  conceive  the  uni- 
verse to  be  a  process  in  the  adjustment  and  readjustment 
of  the  forms  of  energy  constituting  nature,  and  the  proc- 
ess is  accomplished  by  the  expenditure  in  different 
methods  of  these  two  forms  of  energy  along  the  line  of 
least  resistance.  First,  as  in  the  line  of  physical  nature, 
where  the  line  of  least  resistance  is  determined  by  the  blind 

z  Essays  on  Materialistic  Conception  of  History,  207. 
8  Ethics,  90. 

3aKautsky  says  the  "moral  law"  and  the  "moral  judgment" 
come  "  from  our  impulses."    Ethics,  90. 
*  Socialism,  Theory  and  Practice,  50. 
6  International  Socialist  Review,  August,  1904. 
6  Op.  cit.,  150. 


THE  MORAL  PRINCIPLE  83 

conflict  of  contending  forces.  Second,  as  in  organic  mat- 
ter, where  the  line  of  least  resistance  is  determined  by 
mind.  Third,  as  in  morality,  where  the  line  of  least  re- 
sistance is  determined  by  the  moral  sense."  7 

And  of  this  moral  law, —  which  is  no  more  than  the 
adjustment  and  readjustment  of  the  forces  of  energy, 
which  depends  on  the  interdependence  of  material  atoms, 
which  grows  and  expands  with  social  impulses  along  the 
line  of  least  resistance, —  what  are  its  commands?  We 
may  accept  the  answer  Dietzgen  made  to  this  question 
as  an  orthodox  answer,  not  only  because  it  is  accepted 
by  Socialists,  but  also  because  it  is  consistent  with  Socialist 
fundamentals :  "  The  moral  world  has  but  one  com- 
mand: permanent  social  progress,  limitless  social  evolu- 
tion." 8  "  Therefore,  what  Socialists  must  teach  is  not 
abstract  ethical  formulae.  What  is  needed,  and  sufficient, 
and  alone  ethical  (sic),  because  alone  vital  and  effective, 
is  an  understanding  of  the  irresistible  process  of  universal 
evolution."  ° 

It  seems,  therefore,  to  be  much  like  chasing  a  rainbow 
to  undertake  to  search  out  the  Socialist  commands  relat- 
ing to  moral  conduct.  Where  there  is  no  other  command 
than  "  limitless  social  evolution,"  no  other  need  than  an 
understanding  of  "  universal  evolution," —  no  more  defi- 
nite obligation  —  unless  we  accept  the  statement  of 
Kautsky  that  "  an  animal  impulse  and  nothing  else  is  the 
moral  law  " —  the  poor  man  who  is  not  gifted  with  the 
scientific  insight,  foresight  and  hindsight  bestowed  on 

7  Socialization   of   Humanity,   International   Socialist   Review, 
November,  1904. 

8  Philosophical  Essays,  171. 

9  International  Socialist  Review,  E.  Untermann,  August,  1904. 


84  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Socialist  philosophers  must  be  content  to  learn  what  the 
Socialist  moral  does  not  command. 

It  does  not  command  one  to  worship  God,  but  instead 
suggests  that  one  worship  "  the  laws  and  forces  of  na- 
ture." 10  It  does  not  command  one  to  reverence  the  name 
of  God,  but  says :  "  There  is  no  name  —  care  not  what 
it  is  —  that  has  any  sacredness."  "  It  does  not  command 
one  to  love  God,  and  even  to  talk  about  Him  is  resented 
as  a  "  gratuitous  insult."  Ask  a  Scientific  Socialist  if  it  is 
immoral  to  steal,  and  he  will  say  that  he  "  has  no  respect 
for  property  rights  nor  the  least  scruple  about  violating 
them."  12  He  will  try  to  heap  confusion  upon  us  by 
affirming  in  all  seriousness  that  "  the  time  will  come  when 
no  one  will  be  able  to  speak  about  the  rights  of  property 
without  covering  himself  with  ridicule  and  putting  him- 
self voluntarily  into  an  inferior  rank."  13  Ask  him  if  it 
is  immoral  to  commit  murder  and  he  will  say  that  he  calls 
the  assassins  of  Russia  his  "  comrades  and  so  do  all  the 
Socialists  of  America  and  all  the  Socialists  of  the 
world,"  "  that  he  will  unhesitatingly  "  use  any  weapon 
that  will  win  his  fight."  15  He  will  even  go  so  far  as  to 
say  that  "  if  a  tramp  should  meet  a  child  on  the  highway, 
murder  her,  rob  her  of  a  few  coppers  and  throw  her  body 
into  a  ditch  —  he  ought  not  to  be  punished."  16  Ask  him 
if  it  is  immoral  to  commit  adultery,  and  he  will  answer 

10  Economic  Interpretation  of  History,  L.  Farce,  61. 

11  Socialism  and  Primitive  Christianity,  W.  T.  Brown,  19. 

12  Debs,  International  Socialist  Review,  January,  1912. 

13  Studies  in  Socialism,  Juares,  32. 

14  London's  Yale  Address,  1906. 
16  Industrial  Socialism,  57. 

16  Not  Guilty,  a  novel  by  Robt.  Blatchf ord,  203. 


THE  MORAL  PRINCIPLE  85 

that  all  such  matters  "  are  merely  a  private  affair,  subject 
to  no  law,  human  or  divine,"  1T  that  "  when  property  is 
transformed,  boys  and  girls  may  freely  listen  to  the 
promptings  of  their  nature," 18  that  then  "  free  sexual 
intercourse  can  be  the  highly  moral  product  of  a  healthy 
social  organism."  19 

Socialism  does  not  teach  humility,  patience,  meekness, 
but  holds  these  to  be  "virtues  of  slavery  and  of  bond- 
age."20 It  does  not  teach  even  the  ordinary  virtues  of 
sobriety,  industry,  thrift;  for  all  such  virtues,  it  claims, 
"  simply  enrich  the  idle  and  wicked  and  reduce  the  indus- 
trious and  righteous  to  slavery.  Teetotalism  will  not  do, 
increased  skill  will  not  do,  saving  will  not  do.  Nothing 
will  do  but  Socialism."  21  We  shall  close  this  section  with 
a  clever  bit  of  verse  from  the  pen  of  LaMonte,22  wherein 
this  popular  Socialist  propagandist  epitomizes  and 
illumines  the  philosophy  and  the  law  of  Socialist  morality : 

"  What  are  '  wrong/  '  right/  '  vice/  '  virtue/  '  bad '  and 

'  good '  ? 

Mere  whips  to  scourge  the  backs  that  naked  bear 
The  burden  of  the  world  —  bent  backs  that  dare 
Not  rise  erect,  defy  the  tyrant  '  should/ 
And  freely,  boldly  do  the  things  they  would. 
In  living's  joy  they  rarely  have  a  share; 

17  Woman,  August  Bebel,  466. 

18  Quoted  by  Lecky  from  G.  Deville,  Democracy  and  Liberty, 
ii,  348. 

19  Ethics  and  the  Materialistic  Conception  of  History,  Kautsky. 

20  Passing  of  Capitalism,  Isadora  Ladoflf,  49. 

21  Imprudent  Marriages,  Blatchford,  4;  cf.  also,  Paul  Lafargue's 
Right  to  be  Lazy. 

22  Socialism  Positive  and  Negative,  57. 


86  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

They  look  beyond  the  grave  and  hope  that  there 
They'll  be  repaid,  poor  fools,  for  being  good. 
To  serve  thy  master,  that  is  virtue,  Slave ; 
To  do  thy  will,  enjoy  sweet  life,  is  vice. 
Poor  duty-ridden  serf,  rebel!    Forget 
Thy  master-taught  morality.     Be  brave 
Enough  to  make  this  earth  a  Paradise 
Whereon  the  Sun  of  Joy  will  never  set." 


CHAPTER  FIVE 
THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE 

I.     CIVIL  AUTHORITY 

Politics  has  been  defined  as  the  science  of  civil  govern- 
ment. Government  is  based  upon  authority.  A  political 
principle,  therefore,  must  define  the  source  and  character 
of  civil  authority.  All  teachings  bearing  on  this  question 
are  reducible  to  three  concepts.  The  first  of  these  to  be 
considered,  because  that  most  consonant  with  human  rea- 
son, is  that  which  holds  that  all  authority  comes  from 
God.  "  There  is  no  authority  but  from  God,"  declare  the 
scriptures,  and  hence,  "  The  powers  that  be  are  ordained 
of  God."  This  truth  lies  at  the  root  of  all  governments 
that  have  been  lawfully  constituted  from  the  beginning. 
When  God  gave  to  the  first  man  "  dominion  over  every 
living  creature  that  moveth  upon  the  earth,"  He  stamped 
civil  authority  with  a  source  and  character  that  are  divine. 
This  concept  should  not  be  confused  with  its  abusive 
application,  which,  beginning  with  the  resistance  offered 
by  tyrannical  princes  to  the  authority  of  Popes  exercised 
on  behalf  of  oppressed  subjects,  in  time  gave  rise  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  kings. 

NOTE:  To  say  that  the  authority  of  the  Popes  was  exer- 
cised in  behalf  of  the  oppressed  may  excite  surprise  in  those 
who  are  accustomed  to  regard  the  Catholic  Church  as  itself 
an  instrument  of  oppression.  But  the  statement  is  more  than 

87 


88  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

warranted.  The  historian  Lecky,  a  free-thinker,  says  (His- 
tory of  Rationalism  in  Europe,  ii,  17)  :  "  The  Church,  which 
seemed  so  haughty  and  overbearing  in  its  dealings  with  kings 
and  princes  and  nobles,  never  failed  to  listen  to  the  poor  and 
the  oppressed,  and  for  many  centuries  their  protection  was 
the  foremost  of  all  the  objects  of  her  policy."  Draper,  the 
Protestant  historian,  says  (The  European  Age  of  Faith)  : 
"  From  her  central  seat  in  Rome,  her  all-seeing  eye,  like 
that  of  Providence  itself,  at  a  glance  could  equally  take  in 
a  hemisphere  or  examine  the  private  life  of  an  individual. 
Her  boundless  influences  enveloped  kings  in  their  palaces 
and  relieved  the  beggar  at  the  monastery  gate.  In  all  Eu- 
rope there  was  not  a  man  too  obscure,  too  insignificant  or  too 
desolate  for  her.  In  ages  of  lawlessness  and  rapine,  among 
people  but  a  step  above  savages,  she  vindicated  the  inviolabil- 
ity of  her  precincts  against  the  hand  of  power  and  made  her 
temples  a  refuge  and  a  sanctuary  for  the  despairing  and  the 
oppressed.  Truly,  she  was  the  shadow  of  a  great  rock  in 
many  a  weary  land !  "  Even  the  Socialist  historian,  H.  M. 
Hyndman,  has  a  tribute  to  pay  her.  He  says  (Historical 
Basis  of  Socialism,  15):  "The  Church,  as  all  know,  was 
the  one  body  in  which  equality  of  conditions  was  the  rule 
from  the  start ;  there  at  least,  the  man  of  ability,  who  outside 
her  pale  was  forced  to  bow  down  before  some  baron,  could 
rise  to  a  position  in  which  the  unlettered  swashbuckler  grov- 
elled before  him.  Sixtus  V  was  picked  out  of  the  gutter; 
our  Englishman,  Adrian  IV,  was  a  poor  laborer's  son;  and 
these  are  but  two  instances  out  of  thousands.  Also,  how- 
ever dangerous  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  Church  may 
appear  to  us,  it  was  used  for  the  most  part,  for  the  people 
and  against  the  dominant  class,  and  its  influence,  as  history 
shows,  was  almost  unbounded." 

It  is  the  authority  that  is  from  God,  not  the  power  to 
exercise  that  authority,  which  is  as  distinct  from  authority 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  89 

as  is  an  officer  from  the  office  he  holds.  This  idea  and 
distinction  is  found  clearly  expressed  by  Suarez,  who  says : 
"  By  the  mere  fact  of  men  being  gathered  together  into 
the  body  of  one  State  or  commonwealth,  civil  authority 
results  in  that  community  without  the  intervention  of  any 
created  will,  and  that  with  so  great  necessity  that  the 
result  cannot  be  hindered  by  any  human  will  —  which  is 
a  clear  proof  that  the  authority  is  immediately  of  God 
(since  all  things  that  follow  immediately  upon  human 
nature  are  immediately  of  God,  the  Author  of  that  na- 
ture). But  evidently  this  authority  is  not  in  one  person, 
nor  in  any  special  company  of  persons,  because  by  the 
nature  of  the  thing  it  is  only  in  the  commonwealth,  be- 
cause by  dint  of  natural  reasoning  no  reason  can  be  de- 
vised why  this  authority  should  be  determined  to  one 
person,  or  to  a  fixed  number  of  persons  short  of  the  whole 
community,  rather  than  to  any  other  person  or  to  any 
other  number ;  therefore,  in  virtue  to  nature's  grant  it  is 
immediately  in  the  commonwealth  only."  * 

The  second  concept  to  be  considered  arose  from  the 
failure  among  rulers  to  observe  the  distinction  so  clearly 
made  by  this  eminent  writer.  The  "  divine  right "  doc- 
trine that  sprang  up  as  a  consequence  of  this  failure,  when 
pressed  to  its  logical  conclusion,  appeared  an  error,  and 
in  rejecting  it,  many  rejected  the  truth  of  which  it  was  a 
corruption.  Hence,  came  about  the  idea  that  civil  au- 
thority is  derived  from  the  governed,  which  was  taught 
by  Hobbes  (Leviathan],  Locke  (Civil  Government), 
Rousseau  (The  Social  Contract)  and  others  who  imbibed 
the  poisonous  principles  of  the  French  Encyclopedists. 

^•Defensio  Fidei,  III,  c.  ii. 


90  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  this  idea  is  embodied  in  the 
American  Declaration  of  Independence  in  the  statement 
that  "  Governments  derive  their  just  powers  from  the 
consent  of  the  governed,"  but,  although  largely  inspired  by 
the  writings  of  Rousseau  and  other  French  doctrinaires, 
this  does  not  in  terms  coincide  with  their  view  since  it 
specifies  "  power  "  and  not  authority  as  coming  from  the 
people  governed,  which  is  not  error. 

This  second  concept  being  untrue,  it  proved  inade- 
quate, and  the  more  thoroughly  it  was  put  into  effect,  the 
more  manifest  became  its  inefficacy.  This  gave  rise  to 
a  third  concept,  which  is  that  of  Socialism.  This  con- 
cept holds  that  civil  authority  is  not  from  God,  because 
there  is  no  God.  It  holds  that  it  is  not  from  men,  for 
the  consciousness  of  men,  instead  of  determining  their 
social  life,  is  itself  determined  by  it.  According  to  this 
concept,  authority  is  no  more  or  less  than  evolutionary 
force.  Each  stage  in  the  development  of  this  force  pro- 
duces certain  material  conditions.  The  sum  of  these  con- 
ditions at  a  given  time  constitutes  all  that  is  implied  in 
the  terms,  authority,  government,  State,  law.  The  con- 
ditions that  are  summed  up  in  the  particular  phase  called 
social  life,  constitute  the  authority  in  or  over  that  life, 
or,  civil  authority.  In  this  view,  society  may  be  likened 
to  a  collection  of  material  particles  that  are  drawn  to- 
gether and  formed  into  a  mass  through  the  law  of  co- 
hesion ;  the  attractive  or  cohesive  force  governing  this 
mass  of  matter  in  all  substantial  respects  is  of  a  charac- 
ter with  the  force  that  governs  society.  There  is  but  one 
difference  to  be  noted,  and  this,  though  at  first  appear- 
ing to  be  a  difference  in  character,  is  one  of  degree  only. 
To  the  original  evolutionary  force  that  alike  governs  all 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  91 

matter,  there  came  in  time  to  be  added  the  consciousness 
generated  by  this  force,  and  in  human,  as  distinguished 
from  "  atomic  society,"  this  element  of  consciousness  be- 
comes a  factor  in  the  processes  of  evolution.2  As  viewed 
from  ivithin  social  life,  the  development  of  this  element 
of  consciousness  seems  to  be  an  important  modification 
of  the  evolutionary  theory,  but  as  viewed  from  "without, 
it  contradicts  the  theory  no  more  than  a  rising  balloon 
contradicts  the  law  of  gravity.  For  just  as  a  balloon 
rises  in  response  to  the  same  law  that  causes  a  weight 
to  fall,  so  the  element  of  consciousness  responds  to  the 
general  process  of  evolution  in  the  same  manner  as  do 
all  the  other  properties  of  matter.  As  is  observed  by 
Spargo  in  a  previously  quoted  phrase :  "  Socialists  recog- 
nize many  forces  urging  mankind  onward  .  .  .  but  back 
of  them  are  the  material  economic  (evolutionary)  condi- 
tions." In  fine,  Socialist  philosophy  holds  that  society 
makes  man,  not  man  society,  and  that  society  itself  is  a 
product  of  material  evolution ;  hence,  civil  authority  is  no 
other  than  a  given  evolutionary  state  of  matter. 

II.    THE  STATE 

For  the  expression  of  civil  authority  the  State  is  nec- 
essary. This  is  not  to  say  that  the  State  is  the  expres- 
sion of  civil  authority,  but  that  the  only  means  of  ex- 
pressing it  is  through  the  State.  The  State  is  the 
expression  of  society.  It  is  the  concrete  organization, 
more  or  less  definite,  of  society.  The  State  has  two  es- 
sential prerogatives,  the  distinction  between  and  the 
sources  of  which  are  clearly  defined.  It  is  based  upon 

2  Cf.  Socialism,  Revolution  and  Internationalism,  G.  Deville,  5. 


92  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

authority,  which  is  from  God,  and  it  is  endowed  with 
power,  which  is  from  society.  These  are  not  only  dis- 
tinct, they  are  different;  they  may  become  incompatible, 
even  contradictory, —  as  where  the  State  in  contravention 
to  divine  law  declares  a  valid  marriage  annulled,  or 
without  warrant  interferes  with  the  authority  of  the 
parent  over  the  child,  or  in  some  other  manner  invades 
the  province  of  divinely  constituted  spiritual  authority 
or  hinders  the  due  recognition  of  the  supernatural  order. 
It  is  precisely  to  such  a  conflict,  wherein  the  State  exer- 
cises a  power  that  does  not  coincide  with  its  authority, 
that  the  evil  of  governments  is  due.  When  the  authority 
and  the  power  of  the  State  are  in  perfect  accord,  the  gov- 
ernment is  free  of  evil,  although  evil  exists  in  society  in 
spite  of  government.  The  government  is  then  perfect, 
not  in  the  sense  that  it  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired,  but 
in  the  sense  that  its  principle  is  perfect,  which  is  as  much 
as  can  be  said  for  anything  in  which  man  plays  a  part. 

The  constitution  of  a  government  is  not  essential  to 
its  character;  that  is  to  say,  the  State  has  no  indispen- 
sable form,  but  may  be  variously  constituted.  "  The 
right  to  rule  is  not  necessarily  bound  up  with  any  special 
mode  of  government.  It  may  take  this  or  that  form,  pro- 
vided only  that  it  be  of  a  nature  to  insure  the  general 
welfare.  But  whatever  be  the  nature  of  government, 
rulers  must  ever  bear  in  mind  that  God  is  the  paramount 
ruler  of  the  world,  and  must  set  Him  before  themselves 
as  their  exemplar  and  their  law  in  the  administration  of 
the  State.  Everything  without  exception  must  be  sub- 
ject to  Him  and  must  serve  Him."  1  The  State's  consti- 

1  Encyclical  Immortale  Dei  of  Leo  XIII. 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  93 

tution  does  not  affect  its  authority,  but  only  its  powers, 
which  must  be  restricted  or  enlarged  to  meet  the  exi- 
gencies of  time  and  circumstance.  Its  authority  remains 
ever  the  same, —  to  establish  a  well-ordered  society,  to 
preserve  justice,  to  insure  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness  to  all  its  people.  Where  these  are  to  any  con- 
siderable degree  lacking,  it  is  not  the  authority,  but  the 
power  of  the  State  that  is  inadequate.  Either  its  power 
does  not  measure  up  to  its  authority,  or  it  is  misdirected 
and  abused. 

Hence,  it  is  clear  that  whatever  faults  may  be  ob- 
served in  the  workings  of  governments  are  to  be  assigned 
to  their  misuse  of  power,  which  misuse  is  the  inevitable 
condition  of  the  shortcomings  of  society  itself.  Abso- 
lute precision  in  the  balance  of  authority  and  power  are, 
humanly  speaking,  impossible,  but  this  zenith  mark  is 
none  the  less  the  point  toward  which  all  right  political 
endeavor  must  be  directed.  The  fact  ever  to  be  borne 
in  mind,  without  which  no  permanent  advance  in  poli- 
tics is  possible,  is  that  the  evil  of  governments  is  in  re- 
lation to  their  powers,  and  their  powers  spring  from  the 
people.  These  observations  will  assist  us  to  a  correct 
understanding  of  the  Socialist  teaching  concerning  the 
State. 

"  The  State,"  says  Engels,  "  is  simply  a  product  of  so- 
ciety at  a  certain  stage  of  evolution.  It  is  the  confession 
that  society  is  hopelessly  divided  against  itself,  has  en- 
tangled itself  in  irreconcilable  contradictions,  which  it  is 
powerless  to  banish.  In  order  that  these  contradictions 
may  not  annihilate  society  in  a  useless  struggle,  a  power 
becomes  necessary  that  stands  apparently  above  society 
and  has  the  function  of  keeping  down  conflicts  and  main- 


94  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

taining  order.  And  this  power  is  the  State,  the  most 
powerful  economic  class,  that  by  force  of  its  economic 
supremacy  becomes  also  the  ruling  political  class." 2 
"  For  Socialists,"  says  G.  Deville,  "  the  existence  of  the 
State  is  bound  up  with  the  existence  of  classes.  Be- 
fore classes  came  into  being  there  was  no  State.  Cer- 
tain economic  conditions  begot  classes.  The  privileged 
orders  needed  means  to  preserve  their  position  of  advan- 
tage, and  hence,  the  State  was  born."3  "All  history," 
says  Paul  Lafargue,  "  shows  that  the  State  is  simply 
the  organized  force  at  the  disposal  of  the  privileged 
classes."  4  "  Governments,"  says  Geo.  D.  Herron,  "  are 
chiefly  the  expression  of  those  who  have  lived  off  other 
people  and  who  have  made  laws  for  the  purpose  of  com- 
pelling those  others  to  support  them."  5  "  There  are  no 
words  that  can  make  this  fact  hideous  and  ghastly 
enough,"  says  Herron  in  another  place, — "  the  fact  that 
society  and  its  institutions  are  organized  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enabling  some  people  to  live  off  other  peo- 
ple." 6  Morris  Hillquit  expresses  the  same  view : 
"  The  Socialist  definition  of  the  State  as  an  organization 
of  the  ruling  class  for  the  maintenance  of  the  exploited 
classes  in  a  condition  of  dependence,  is  entirely  correct."  7 
In  fine,  according  to  Socialists,  the  State  is  "  in  the  hands 
of  a  rapacious  minority  a  terrible  engine  against  an  ex- 
ploited majority,"  organized  and  being  maintained  "  for 

2  Origin  of  the  Family,  the  State  and  Private  Property,  206. 

3  State  and  Socialism,  4. 

4  Evolution  Economic,  38. 

5  Metropolitan,  May,  1903. 

6  Revolution  to  Revolution,  10. 

7  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  96. 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  95 

the  defense  of  certain  interests  of  one  part  of  society 
against  the  rest  of  society," — "  an  impersonal  yet  uni- 
versal beast  of  prey,  expressing  the  power  of  the  ruling 
and  possessing  class  to  absorb,  and  to  convert  into  ever- 
increasing  power  to  absorb,  the  whole  output  of  the  life 
and  labor  of  humanity." 

If  the  origin  and  character  of  the  State  were  such  as 
Socialists  describe  them  in  the  excerpts  above  (and  these 
excerpts  could  be  added  to  indefinitely),  no  just  man  could 
do  other  than  welcome  its  overthrow,  nay,  its  utter  ex- 
tinction. The  Socialists  hold  out  this  consolation.  They 
say  that  "  while  explaining  the  origin  of  the  State  [we] 
show  in  this  very  origin  its  future  disappearance." 8 
Here  is  some  food  for  reflection :  how  the  very  origin  of 
a  thing  can  show  its  future  disappearance.  Are  we  to 
suppose  that  its  disappearance  will  also  show  its  future 
origin  or  re-origin  ?  "  We  are  now  rapidly  approaching 
a  stage  of  evolution,"  Engels  beneficently  informs  us, 
"  when  classes  must  fall  as  inevitably  as  they  once  arose, 
and  the  State  must  irrevocably  fall  with  them."  9  "  The 
moment  that  class  organizations  fall,"  says  Bebel  (which 
event,  he  tells  us  in  the  same  breath,  will  be  brought 
about  through  the  abolition  of  property),  "the  State 
loses  both  the  necessity  and  the  possibility  of  existence. 
With  the  abolition  of  private  property  and  class  antag- 
onisms, the  State,  too,  will  gradually  pass  out  of  exist- 
ence ;  will,  so  to  speak,  abolish  itself."  10  Engels  differs 
from  Bebel  as  to  the  mode  of  the  State's  passing.  In 
another  of  his  Socialist  classics  (Engels'  writings  are  all 

8  Anarchy  and  Socialism,  Geo.   Plechanoff,   n. 

9  Origin  of  the  Family,  etc.,  208. 

10  Woman,  272 ;  cf.  also,  435. 


96  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Socialist  classics),  he  gives  this  sweeping  description  of 
the  State's  demise :  "  State  interference  in  social  rela- 
tions becomes  superfluous  in  one  domain  after  another 
and  then  dies  out  of  itself.  The  government  of  persons 
is  replaced  by  the  administration  of  things  and  the  con- 
duct of  the  processes  of  production.  The  State  is  not 
'abolished.'  It  Dies  Out."11  Robert  Rives  LaMonte 
has  yet  another  theory :  "  The  State  is  destined,  when  it 
becomes  the  State  of  the  working  classes,  to  remove  its 
own  foundations  —  economic  inequality  —  and  thus  to 
commit  suicide."  12 

Thus  seeing  that  there  are  so  many  ways  open  for  the 
State  to  become  extinct  of  itself,  we  are  surprised  to 
learn  that  Socialists  would  undertake  to  destroy  it.  But 
such  is  the  case.  "  Socialists,"  says  Marx,  "  make  war 
against  all  prevailing  ideas  of  the  State,  of  country  and 
of  patriotism."  13  "  The  policy  of  the  Socialists,"  says 
Bax,  "  is  to  break  up  the  hideous  monopolies  called  em- 
pires; everything  which  makes  for  the  destruction  and 
disintegration  of  the  State  to  which  he  belongs  is  wel- 
comed by  the  Socialist  as  an  ally."  14  "  The  field  of  So- 
cialist political  action,"  we  learn  from  another  authorita- 
tive source,  "  is  not  to  reinforce  the  present  State  but  to 
capture  and  destroy  it."  15  Paul  Laf argue  says :  "  We 
attack  the  State  in  order  to  destroy  it."  16  Chas.  H. 
Vail  says :  "  The  Socialist  movement  is  not  a  reform 

11  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,  129. 

12  Socialism,  Positive  and  Negative,  113. 

13  Quoted   by   DeTunzlemann,   Superstition    Called   Socialism, 
187. 

14  Religion  of  Socialism,  126. 

15  The  Wage  Slave,  April,  1909. 

16  Economic  Evolution,  28. 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  97 

but  a  revolution."  17  Geo.  D.  Herron  says :  "  It  is  not 
a  remedy  for  the  evils  of  existing  society  but  a  program 
for  a  new  society." 18  The  Socialist  ex-Congressman 
Berger  says :  "  Socialism  stands  for  a  new  civiliza- 
tion."19  Belfort  Bax  says:  "It  is  toward  a  world 
where  Civilization  shall  have  ceased  to  be,  that  the  Social- 
ist of  to-day  sets  his  eyes."  20 

What  will  take  the  place  of  the  State,  once  Socialists 
have  accomplished  their  purpose?  Such  a  question,  in 
the  estimation  of  Socialists,  does  not  appear  to  be  of  much 
importance,  but  we  confess  to  at  least  a  curiosity  on  this 
point.  Some  Socialists  frankly  admit  that  they  "  cannot 
say  what  sort  of  a  society  the  Socialist  State  will  be,"  21 
that  it  "  can  no  more  be  described  in  detail  than  any  other 
thing  that  is  hidden  in  the  womb  of  time."  22  Some  have 
the  assurance  to  say  that  "  it  is  a  mark  of  ignorance  to 
ask  for  details."  But  the  majority  of  them,  rather  than 
acknowledge  a  possible  exception  to  their  claim  that  their 
philosophy  is  a  "general  key  for  the  solution  of  all  the 
riddles  of  the  universe,"  undertake  to  give  a  vague  sort 
of  description  of  the  future  society.  The  difficulty  is  not 
to  find  these  descriptions,  but  to  reconcile  with  one 
other,  and  with  other  Socialist  theories,  and  with  human 
nature  and  the  nature  of  things,  the  abundance  that  is 
found.  It  is  out  of  the  question,  even  in  a  general  way, 
to  reproduce  these  various  ideas  of  what  Socialism  might 

17  The  Socialist  Movement,  g. 
is  why  I  Am  a  Socialist,  8. 

19  Socialist  Campaign  Book,  1912,  25. 

20  History  from  the  Socialist  Standpoint. 

21  Herron,  op.  cit.,  31. 

22  Objections  to  Socialism  Answered,  Suthers. 


98  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

be.  Probably  the  most  suggestive  among  them  is  that 
of  Deville :  "  Between  the  time  when  the  Socialist  party 
shall  take  possession  of  the  State,  in  order  to  realize 
the  suppression  of  classes  (all  agree  that  there  will  be 
no  classes  in  Socialisdom),  and  the  time  when  that  sup- 
pression shall  be  actually  accomplished,  there  will  be  the 
Socialist  State.  .  .  .  When  the  transformation  is  com- 
plete there  will  be  instead  of  persons  to  be  restrained 
only  things  to  be  administered,  and  on  that  glorious  day 
there  will  be  a  social  organization  but  no  longer  a 
State."  23  We  are  compelled  to  admit  that  a  social  or- 
ganization that  is  not  a  State  is  past  our  understanding; 
we  cannot  even  imagine  one.  Nor  do  we  receive  much 
light  from  the  statement  that  this  condition  will  be  So- 
cial Democracy  and  that  "  Social  Democracy  is  actual 
democracy,  ...  an  organization  of  society,  which,  rest- 
ing on  the  equality  of  men,  will  choke  the  source  of  in- 
equality, will  tolerate  neither  rule  nor  servant,  and  will 
found  a  fraternal  community  of  free  men."  2*  The  view 
expressed  by  Morris  and  Bax  is  equally  unsatisfactory: 
"  As  to  the  political  side  of  the  new  society,  Civilization 
undertakes  the  government  of  persons  by  direct  coercion, 
Socialism  would  deal  primarily  with  the  administration  of 
things,  and  only  indirectly  would  have  to  do  with  personal 
habit  and  conduct."  25 

We  get  a  little  more  assistance  from  A.  M.  Simons,  who 
says  that  "  the  government  would  be  little  more  than  a 
gigantic  information  bureau,  furnishing  the  citizens  exact 
knowledge  regarding  the  amounts  of  all  kinds  of  com- 

23  The  State  and  Socialism,  45. 

24  Socialism,  Liebknecht,  8. 

25  Socialism,  Its  Growth  and  Outcome,  289. 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  99 

modities  required  by  the  community,  and  notifying  them 
where  there  is  need  of  labor  to  be  performed."  28  But 
there  are  other  Socialists,  like  H.  G.  Wells  and  Morris 
Hillquit,  who  are  not  willing  to  admit  that  there  will  be 
no  State  in  Socialisdom.  Mr.  Wells  outlines  a  fairly 
definite  form  of  "  The  Great  State,"  in  his  Socialist 
Democracy,  and  a  contemporary  Socialist  appraises  it  as 
follows :  "  In  a  State  such  as  Mr.  Wells  has  in  mind, 
tyranny  would  be  certain.  But  he  is  talking  about  State 
Socialism.  If  England  passed  into  State  Socialism,  I 
would  emigrate.  No  man  who  understands  liberty,  toler- 
ation, and  equality,  could  live  under  State  Socialism;  it 
would  be  hell."27  Mr.  Hillquit  says:  "The  Socialist 
society,  as  conceived  by  modern  Socialists,  differs  very 
radically  from  the  modern  State  in  form  and  substance. 
It  is  not  a  class  State.  It  is  not  the  slave-holding  State 
nor  the  feudal  State,  nor  the  State  of  the  bourgeoisie 
—  it  is  the  Socialist  State,  but  a  state  nevertheless."  28 
Mr.  Hillquit  also  suggests  the  outlines  of  a  possible  So- 
cialist State,  and  his  contemporaries  proceed  to  take  him 
to  task  in  no  uncertain  terms.  He  points  out  that  "  the 
Socialist  commonwealth  will  need  vast  material  resources, 
probably  more  than  the  modern  States,  and  these  re- 
sources, in  whatever  form  or  under  whatever  designa- 
tion, can  come  only  from  the  wealth  producing  members 
(workingmen)  of  the  commonwealth  —  thus  there  must 
be  a  direct  or  indirect  tax  on  the  labor  or  income  of  every 
citizen."  And  thus  Hillquit  brings  about  his  ears  a  per- 
fect din  from  the  Socialists  who  clamor  for  "  all  that 

26  Socialism  and  Anarchism,  14. 

27  Robert  Blatchford,  in  The  Clarion,  July  9,  1910. 

28  Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice,  100. 


ioo  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

labor  produces,"  and  he  is  challenged,  in  the  catch-penny 
phrase  of  Debs,  to  say  "  if  the  laborer  is  not  entitled  to 
all  he  produces,  who  is?" 

Assuredly,  when  we  find  in  the  heart  of  the  Socialist 
camp  such  widely  divergent  views  on  a  question  of  so 
great  moment,  it  ought  not  to  be  accounted  "  a  mark  of 
ignorance  to  ask  for  details."  As  nearly  as  we  are  able 
to  derive  a  definite  idea  from  the  innumerable,  conflict- 
ing suggestions  that  we  have  studied,  it  is  that  Socialis- 
dom  would  be  a  social  condition  in  which  there  would  be 
no  civil  law.  Certainly  there  would  be  no  classes; 
merely  to  hint  at  the  contrary  is  the  rankest  of  Social- 
ist heresies.  This  is  the  one  unbroken  thread  that  is 
woven  throughout  the  fabric  of  Socialist  teaching.  And 
without  classes  there  can  be  no  civil  law.  If  we  mis- 
take not  the  meaning  of  the  philosophy  of  Socialism,  of 
its  history,  its  tactics,  and  its  aims,  of  their  bearing  upon 
religious,  moral,  and  social  life,  the  sum  and  substance  of 
its  political  principles  are  expressed  in  the  idea  of  a  social 
existence  where  there  is  no  civil  law. 

III.     CIVIL  LAW 

Civil  law  is  a  natural  consequence  of  the  State's  ex- 
istence. It  is  necessary  to  the  State's  existence.  To 
speak  of  a  State  without  laws  is  like  speaking  of  a  hu- 
man body  without  a  soul.  Plato  says  (Laivs,  III-68o-A) 
that  certain  prehistoric  States  had  no  laws,  but  that 
"  the  people  lived  in  obedience  to  customs  and  traditional 
observances."  But  what  were  these  but  laws?  Embry- 
onic in  their  state  of  development,  it  is  true,  but  so,  also, 
was  the  State  in  which  they  prevailed.  It  is  law  that 
links  together  the  authority  and  the  power  of  the  State; 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  101 

law  is  the  expression  of  this  authority  and  this  power; 
it  is  the  only  means  whereby  these  can  be  expressed,  un- 
less it  be  through  force.  And  what  is  force  that  is  not 
lawful  ?  Who  will  sanction  lawless  force  ?  But  who  will 
refuse  to  obey  law  because  it  is  not  supported  by  force? 
In  the  answer  to  these  questions  is  found  the  unfailing 
test  of  civilization.  The  ranking  degree  of  a  society  in 
civilization  is  gauged  by  its  estimate  of  law  and  force. 
If  lawless  force  be  generally  sanctioned  and  law  with- 
out force  be  generally  disregarded  in  a  society,  it  is  not 
civilized.  And  to  the  extent  that  this  obtains  among 
members  of  society,  though  it  does  not  obtain  generally, 
its  civilization  is  not  complete.  Such  members  or  their 
dispositions  must  be  eradicated  before  the  society  in  which 
they  are  found  can  make  further  advances. 

We  have  here  come  to  a  very  practical  phase  of  our 
study,  and  too  much  emphasis  cannot  be  placed  upon 
the  necessity  for  its  thorough  consideration.  Broadly 
speaking,  we  have  reached  a  point  that  in  actual  life 
marks  the  backward  sweep  of  the  human  race,  a  point 
that  the  race  has  passed  over  more  than  once  in  its  his- 
tory. There  have  been  many  States  in  the  world :  many 
are  extinct;  each  has  had  its  own  history,  its  own  laws, 
its  own  public  spirit.  There  have  been  great  States 
among  them,  and  the  ruins  in  which  we  find  their  monu- 
ments buried  attest  that  civilization  has  suffered  losses 
with  its  gains.  How  much  of  what  we  now  call  progress 
is  only  a  recovery  of  lost  position,  how  much  of  our 
growth  only  a  restoration  of  former  greatness,  no  one 
can  say.  Assyria  was  great;  so  was  Egypt.  Their 
buried  cities,  Nineveh,  Babylon,  Thebes,  were  great, — 
how  great,  we  are  only  beginning  to  learn  and  may  never 


102  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

fully  know.  We  have  only  their  ruins  to  teach  us.  And 
who  can  say  that  there  have  not  been  great  States  whose 
ruins  even  are  swept  away?  Plato  has  left  us  a  graphic 
description  of  "  Atlantis,"  a  wonderful  country,  and  it 
is  impossible  to  say  how  much  of  it  is  due  to  invention 
and  how  much  to  facts  of  which  we  now  have  no  rec- 
ord. But  Plato  speaks  of  it  more  than  once  (in  Critias 
and  Timaeus)  and  Homer  refers  to  it  in  the  Odyssey, 
each  seeming  to  regard  its  existence  as  real.  Of  much 
similar  import  are  the  legends  —  if,  indeed,  they  are 
legends  —  of  the  island  of  "  Brazil,"  from  which  the  great 
South  American  Republic  takes  its  name,  as  the  Atlantic 
Ocean  did  from  "  Atlantis,"  of  Lyonnese,  the  sunken  land 
off  the  Cornish  coast,  of  the  lost  Breton  city  of  Is,  of 
the  part  of  China  sunk  beneath  the  Yellow  Sea  in  a 
catastrophe  caused,  as  the  legend  runs,  by  the  extensive 
operation  of  extractive  industries  on  the  part  of  the  an- 
cient Celestials.  It  would  be  extremely  sceptical  to  dis- 
card all  the  lore  that  has  grown  up  in  reference  to  these 
lost  countries  as  wholly  imaginary.  Did  we  know  their 
history,  it  doubtless  would  teach  us  much,  and  perhaps 
some  things  not  very  flattering  to  our  conceit  of  twentieth 
century  civilization. 

But  of  those  countries  whose  territory  remains  a  si- 
lent witness  of  States  that  are  buried  in  the  past,  though 
we  have  not  their  history,  we  know  enough  to  be  warned 
that  civilization  is  never  secure,  that  society  will  never 
reach  a  stage  where  it  may  relax  its  vigilance,  its  au- 
thority or  its  laws.  Although  some  strange  alchemy  were 
to  change  human  nature  into  angelic,  the  necessity  for 
authority  and  for  laws  of  society  expressing  that  author- 
ity would  not  be  dispensed  with :  even  the  angels  are  sub- 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  103 

ject.  The  most  that  can  be  said  is,  that  with  such  an 
hypothesis  realized,  there  would  be  no  need  of  force  to 
secure  the  observance  of  laws.  Politically  speaking,  this 
is  the  highest  degree  of  perfection  conceivable:  it  is  the 
ideal;  and  if  it  were  required  to  write  in  one  line  the 
political  history  of  all  nations,  so  that  their  growth  and 
their  decay,  their  conquests  and  their  surrenders,  their 
achievements  and  their  failures,  their  happiness  and  their 
misery  and  their  net  gain  over  all,  would  appear  as  in  a 
panoramic  view,  the  line  would  nearest  meet  this  require- 
ment that  described  how  law  has  superseded  force  from 
the  beginning  until  now. 

There  is  a  fine  old  English  word  that  fits  in  here,  a 
word  that  in  three  syllables  sums  up  the  all-round  char- 
acter of  a  good  citizen.  It  imports  firmness  of  heart, 
strength  of  mind,  integrity  of  purpose.  It  means  love 
of  authority  and  respect  for  law.  The  word  is  LOY- 
ALTY. A  loyal  man  is  a  just  man  and  he  can  be  trusted. 
He  is  an  honest  man  and  he  will  trust  others.  He  is  a 
sincere  man  and  he  can  trust  himself.  Loyalty  —  to  God, 
to  country,  to  neighbor  and  to  self  —  is  the  high- water 
mark  of  a  man's  civilization. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  Socialist  political  prin- 
ciple in  its  relations  and  bearings  toward  civil  law. 
Like  the  heathens  of  old  who  worshipped  some  Unknown 
God,  Socialists  are  ready  to  bow  down  to  the  law  of 
evolution.  But  they  have  no  respect  for  civil  law. 
Though  they  submit  to  its  force,  since  they  cannot  do 
otherwise,  they  disown  its  authority  and  condemn  its  prin- 
ciple and  only  bide  the  time  when  they  can  violate  it 
with  impunity  or  even  abolish  it  altogether.  The  four- 
times  candidate  of  the  Socialist  Party  for  President  of 


104  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

the  United  States  expresses  this  attitude  in  terms  that 
do  not  admit  of  doubt  as  to  their  meaning.  "  As  a  revo- 
lutionist," says  Mr.  Debs,  "  I  have  no  respect  for  property 
laws  nor  the  least  scruple  about  violating  them.  I  hold 
all  such  laws  to  have  been  enacted  through  chicanery, 
fraud  and  corruption,  with  the  sole  end  in  view  of  dis- 
possessing, robbing  and  enslaving  the  working  class.  But 
this  does  not  imply  that  I  propose  making  an  individual 
lawbreaker  of  myself  and  butting  my  head  against  a  wall. 
If  I  had  the  force  to  overthrow  these  despotic  laws,  I 
would  use  it  without  an  instant's  hestitation  or  delay, 
but  I  haven't  got  it,  and  so  I  am  a  law-abiding  citizen 
under  protest  —  not  from  scruple  —  and  I  bide  my  time." 
This  edifying  utterance  appeared  in  the  International  So- 
cialist Review  for  February,  1912,  and  was  written  in 
response  to  the  criticism  provoked  by  a  paragraph  ap- 
pearing in  a  pamphlet  issued  late  in  1911  by  W.  D.  Hay- 
wood  and  Frank  Bonn,1  which  reads  as  follows: 
"  When  the  worker,  either  through  experience  or  a  study 
of  Socialism,  comes  to  know  this  truth  [that  he  is  daily 
robbed  of  four-fifths  of  his  labor],  he  acts  accordingly. 
He  retains  absolutely  no  respect  for  the  property  '  rights  ' 
of  the  profit- takers.  He  will  use  any  weapon  that  will 
win  his  fight.  He  knows  that  the  laws  of  property  are 
made  by  and  for  the  capitalists,  therefore,  he  does  not 
hesitate  to  break  them."  Debs,  in  the  magazine  article 
quoted,  came  forward  as  the  champion  of  the  Socialist 
orthodoxy  of  this  expression  (and  who  shall  say  '  nay ' 
to  Debs  when  he  poses  as  the  spokesman  of  American 
Socialists)  and  under  the  title,  "  Sound  Socialist  Tac- 
1  Industrial  Socialism.  The  paragraph  quoted  is  found  at  page 
57- 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  105 

tics,"  he  endorses  the  Haywood-Bohn  paragraph  as  fol- 
lows :  "  We  here  have  a  method  of  tactics  upon  which 
a  number  of  comrades  of  ability  have  sharply  disagreed 
(on  tactical  grounds).  For  my  part  I  consider  the  para- 
graph entirely  sound.  It  speaks  for  itself  and  needs  no 
apology.  The  workers  will  use  any  weapon  which  help 
them  WIN  their  fight."  Appearing  also  in  this  article 
is  another  paragraph  which  we  quote :  "  There  will  be 
all  kinds  of  extremists  to  deal  with  [in  deciding  upon 
tactics].  But  we  have  nothing  to  fear.  Let  them  all 
have  their  day.  The  great  body  of  the  comrades,  the 
rank  and  file,  will  not  be  misled  by  false  teachings  or 
deflected  from  the  true  course."  We  cannot  help  but 
wonder  what  the  writer  means  by  "  extremists,"  "  false 
teachings,"  etc.  Perhaps  some  light  is  reflected  upon  his 
meaning  by  a  previous  article  from  him  that  treats  of  the 
celebrated  McNamara  cases,  in  which  he  says :  "  I  abhor 
murder,  but  I  have  my  own  ideas  as  to  what  constitutes 
murder.  ...  As  between  this  blind  and  cruel  extreme  [of 
the  McNamaras]  and  the  opposite  extreme  of  cowardly 
surrender,  the  former  is  infinitely  preferable.  ...  If  the 
McNamara  case  teaches  us  anything,  it  is  that  we  must 
organise."  2  But  still  we  wonder :  what  does  the  Mc- 
Namara case  teach  them  to  organise  for? 

There  also  appears  in  the  Review,  in  the  same  issue 
with  Debs'  "  Tactics,"  the  full  text  of  Haywood's  fa- 
mous (not  to  say  infamous)  "  Cooper  Union  "  speech 
of  January,  1912,  in  which  he  is  quoted  as  saying,  be- 
tween interruptions  of  applause  by  his  audience  of  Social- 
ists :  "  I  say  that  I  despise  the  law  and  I  am  not  a  law- 
abiding  citizen.  And  more  than  that,  no  Socialist  CAN 

2  International  Socialist  Review,  January,  1912. 


106  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

be  a  law-abiding  citizen.  When  we  come  together,  .  .  . 
we  become  conspirators  against  the  United  States  gov- 
ernment. .  .  .  Am  I  correct?  Am  I  absolutely  correct 
when  I  state  this  as  being  the  position  of  the  Socialist 
Party,  not  only  of  New  York,  but  of  the  United  States, 
and  of  every  nation  of  the  world?"  The  answer  given 
by  the  audience  was  "  applause."  And  within  sixty  days 
after  this  treasonable  utterance  was  heralded  to  the  world, 
Haywood  was  elected  by  the  direct  vote  of  Socialist  party 
members,  Debs'  "  rank  and  file,"  as  one  of  the  National 
Executive  Committee,  which  is  composed  of  eight  mem- 
bers, he  having  received  the  second  highest  number  of 
votes  cast  by  his  admiring  Comrades.  Later,  he  was  re- 
moved from  this  position  by  referendum  ballot,  because 
of  his  tactless  activity  in  behalf  of  the  Industrial  Work- 
ers of  the  World.  However,  so  far  as  our  advices  go, 
he  is  still  a  Socialist  in  good  standing.  Commenting  upon 
the  utterance  quoted,  Robert  Rives  LaMonte  has  this 
to  say :  "  As  a  matter  of  fact  most  Socialists  are  law- 
abiding  citizens.  We  are  because  we  have  to  be  [as  are 
the  most  notorious  convicted  criminals] .  The  other  fel- 
lows have  the  law-enforcing  power.  We  know  it.  We 
know  it  is  futile  for  the  individual  to  defy  the  law. 
Had  Haywood  said  we  are  not  law-respecting  citizens, 
his  position  would  have  been  impregnable,  for  it  is  true. 
The  Socialist  whose  Socialism  is  more  than  skin-deep, 
always  whistles  at  the  law.  ...  In  the  tyrannies  of 
Europe  the  people  need  no  urging  to  spit  upon  the  law. 
Here  in  America  we  are  cursed  by  a  superstitious  and 
paralysing  reverence  for  the  law.  And  one  of  the  chief 
objects  of  Socialist  propaganda  is  to  teach  the  workers 
that  our  states  are  Class  States,  that  our  courts  are 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  107 

Class  Courts,  and  that  our  laws  are  Class  Laws.  Every 
class-conscious  worker  whistles  at  the  law,  but  he  obeys 
it.  He  knows  that  force  is  back  of  it.  But  while  he 
obeys  the  law,  he  keeps  on  steadily  organizing  the  power 
that  will  enable  him  to  overthrow  the  law.  .  .  .  Respect 
for  law,  respect  for  the  '  sacred  rights  of  private  prop- 
erty,' are  the  stone  walls  against  which  every  Socialist 
agitator  is  continually  ramming  his  long-suffering  head. 
This  wall  we  must  batter  down."  3 

Socialist  expressions  like  these  could  be  multiplied 
without  limit.  Whether  or  not  the  lawlessness  indicated 
would  manifest  itself  in  desperate  deeds  under  favor- 
able conditions,  we  can  learn  only  from  history.  Prob- 
ably the  most  thoroughly  lawless  uprising  that  ever  oc- 
curred in  history  was  that  of  the  Paris  Commune  of  1871, 
the  glorification  of  which  is  a  common  Socialist  theme. 
This  occurred  just  after  the  Franco-Prussian  war. 
France  was  prostrate  as  a  result  of  that  war;  the  Ger- 
man armies  were  still  within  her  boundaries,  and  the  five- 
billion  indemnity  required  of  her  was  still  unpaid.  Paris 
had  barely  awakened  from  the  nightmare  of  the  most  ter- 
rible siege  a  modern  city  ever  suffered ;  its  citizenry  barely 
realized  that  the  ordinary  channels  of  food-supply  were 
again  open  and  that  horseflesh  was  no  longer  an  exclu- 
sive culinary  dainty.  Then  arose  the  Commune.  All  of 
the  lawless  elements  of  the  city,  headed  by  Socialists,  tak- 
ing advantage  of  the  conditions,  joined  in' a  seven  days' 
orgy.  There  were  pillages  and  burnings  and  massacres 
in  all  parts  of  the  ill-fated  city.  The  grand  palace  of 
the  Tuileries,  with  its  priceless  treasures  of  art  and  sci- 
ence, was  blown  up;  nearly  every  public  building  was 

3 International  Socialist  Review,  Feb.,  1912. 


io8  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

destroyed;  the  residences  of  the  rich  were  set  aflame  in 
every  quarter;  churches  were  pillaged,  homes  were 
sacked,  priests  were  murdered,  women  were  violated; 
forty  thousand  people  were  killed  in  the  streets.  It  is 
said  that  the  Seine  ran  red  with  human  blood.4  The  fol- 
lowing revolting  incident  is  related  by  the  Socialist  Ben- 
ham:  Archbishop  Darbey,  who  is  described  by  contem- 
poraries as  a  most  lovable  man,  honored  by  rich  and 
poor  alike  for  his  charity,  was  brought  before  the  Social- 
ist Rigault,  who  was  sitting  as  a  magistrate.  When 
asked  by  that  self -constituted  worthy  as  to  his  occupa- 
tion, the  Archbishop  said :  "  I  am  a  servant  of  God." 
"  Where  does  He  live  ?  "  asked  Rigault,  and  the  Arch- 
bishop replied :  "  Everywhere."  "  Send  this  man  to  the 
Concierge,"  commanded  the  Socialist  by  way  of  retort, 
"  and  issue  a  warrant  for  the  arrest  of  his  Master,  one 
called  God,  who  has  no  fixed  place  of  abode  and  is  there- 
fore a  vagabond."  The  Archbishop  was  shot.  "  Every 
year,"  says  the  Socialist  Bax,  "  witnesses  thousands  of 
gatherings  of  Socialists  throughout  the  civilized  world  to 
commemorate  this  —  alas  !  only  temporary  —  victory  of 
organized  Socialist  aspiration  over  the  forces  of  property 
and  privilege."  5  "  There  is  no  martyrdom  so  splendid," 
said  George  D.  Herron,  in  a  much  featured  address  at 
one  of  these  inspiring  gatherings  in  New  York,  1903, 
"  none  so  disinterested  and  so  truly  noble,  so  worthy  of 
being  sung  in  epic  and  told  in  story,  as  the  mighty  mar- 
tyrdom of  the  workingmen  of  Paris  in  the  spring  of 
1871."  At  the  time  he  made  this  speech  Herron  perhaps 

*Cf.   Gabriel   Hanitoux's   "Contemporary   France."    See   also 
the  Socialist  Benham's  Proletarian  Revolt. 
5  Short  History  of  the  Commune. 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  109 

was  the  foremost  figure  in  the  American  Socialist  move- 
ment. 

There  are  positions  in  which  a  single  word  will  some- 
times convey  more  meaning  than  a  fully  developed  tract. 
This  is  true  of  a  word  as  used  by  the  Socialist  Herve. 
Speaking  of  the  "  small  merchants,  small  employers, 
small  peasant  proprietors,  wretched,  impoverished,  un- 
educated people  in  the  ranks  of  the  Socialist  party,"  he 
said  that  "  these  are  elements  that  cannot  be  neglected," 
and  the  reason  he  gives  for  this  conclusion  is  that  "  these 
classes  often  have  a  beautiful  revolutionary  tempera- 
ment." So  to  characterize  the  disposition  to  overthrow 
all  civilized  institutions  requires  an  unfathomable  depth 
of  social  depravity,  such  indeed  as  indicates  a  madness 
with  which  there  is  no  reckoning. 

But  it  is  energetically  urged  by  Socialists  that  their 
opposition  to  the  law  is  justified  because  the  law  is 
"  wrong."  This  argument  has  a  specious  appearance, 
and  when  vigorously  pressed  by  respectable  persons,  it 
seldom  fails  to  win  favor  in  the  minds  of  the  multitude. 
It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  how  it  may  be  urged  with 
sincerity.  There  are  few  things  in  life  more  revolting 
to  man's  sense  of  justice  than  wrong  practiced  by  means 
of  a  law.  Just  as  there  is  no  rule  so  noble  as  the  rule 
of  the  law,  so  there  is  no  tyranny  so  despicable  as  the 
tyranny  of  a  law,  and  to  be  forced  to  suffer  such  tyranny, 
as  many  unquestionably  are,  arouses  in  all  honest  men 
a  just  indignation  and  in  not  a  few  a  blind  passion.  As  a 
result  of  the  passionate  extreme,  which,  though  not  ex- 
cusable, is  still  not  wholly  unpardonable,  the  points  of 
the  mind  are  dulled  and  it  cannot  probe  to  the  core  of 
things  with  precision.  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore, 


no  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

that  many  persons  of  the  best  intentions,  seeing  numer- 
ous instances  of  injustice  in  society,  lose  their  grasp  of 
the  distinction  between  law  and  the  abuse  of  law,  between 
lawful  opposition  to  a  law  and  lawless  opposition  to  the 
law.  A  particular  law  may  be  bad,  may  call  for  com- 
plete and  immediate  abrogation.  The  law  itself  requires 
the  abrogation  of  a  bad  law.  Such  a  law  is  not  truly 
law,  but  a  mere  statute,  though  even  as  such,  unless  con- 
tradictory to  God's  law,  it  requires  obedience  until  it  is 
abrogated  as  the  law  provides.  But  the  law  cannot  be 
bad;  it  cannot  lawfully  be  abrogated;  it  cannot  lawfully 
be  opposed.  It  is  contrary  to  the  very  nature  of  the  law 
to  be  other  than  good,  since  it  is  the  expression  of  au- 
thority, and  authority  is  from  God.  It  is,  therefore,  plain 
beyond  doubt  that  opposition  to  the  law,  as  distinguished 
from  a  law,  is  not  to  be  tolerated  even  in  the  mind,  much 
less  in  words  and  actions.  If  the  Socialist  opposition  to 
law,  whether  expressed  in  word  or  deed,  be  opposition  to 
the  law,  or  to  law  in  general,  it  properly  comes  within 
this  censure,  and  a  clear-sighted  man  is  not  at  his  best 
when  according  it  sanction.  If  this  opposition  is  not 
so  broad,  but  is  only  to  a  certain  law  or  to  certain  laws 
which  might  be  lawfully  abrogated,  then,  having  pointed 
out  such  laws,  Socialists  are  entitled  to  be  heard  on  the 
merits  of  their  opposition  to  them ;  otherwise,  there  can- 
not be  merit  to  consider.  That  the  Socialist  opposition 
is  of  the  character  first  referred  to  appears  too  plain  for 
dispute.  The  language  of  Socialists  is  most  unfortu- 
nately chosen  if  they  would  claim  the  contrary.  Their 
purposes  are  wholly  inconsistent  with  their  philosophy  if 
they  intend  the  contrary.  Not  only  are  their  teachings 
expressly  opposed  to  all  existing  laws,  but  their  aim  seems 


Ill 

unmistakably  to  be  the  establishment  of  a  society  in  which 
there  will  not  be  law.  We  offer  the  following  authorities 
in  this  connection : 

"  One  of  the  first  measures  of  a  definite  Socialist  au- 
thority of  administration  would  be  the  closing  of  all 
civil  courts."  6  "  There  would  be  no  criminal  courts  or 
prosecuting  attorneys  or  police."  7  "  Together  with  the 
State  must  go  its  representatives,  ministers,  parliaments, 
armies,  police,  courts,  lawyers,  prisons  and  prison  offi- 
cials, tax  collectors,  in  short,  the  entire  political  ap- 
paratus." 8  "  In  consequence,  there  will  naturally  be  no 
need  of  laws  at  this  stage  of  evolution." 9  "  We  are 
quite  sure  that  after  the  Social  revolution  there  will  be 
no  need  or  room  for  legislation."  10  Kautsky  says  that 
public  opinion  will  be  the  only  rule  or  law  in  the  new 
society.  Dietzgen  says  that  unlimited  social  progress  will 
be  the  only  command.  Untermann  says  that  a  knowledge 
of  the  universal  processes  of  nature  will  be  the  only  re- 
quirement. Vail  says  that  the  world  probably  will  be 
governed  by  the  touch  of  a  button.  Vowels  says  that  the 
very  laws  of  nature  may  be  dispensed  with  and  he  con- 
templates future  generations  as  being  in  control  of  the 
earth's  course  and  velocity  and  as  steering  "  our  planet 
nearer  and  near  the  sun  as  its  heat  and  splendor  wane." 
Engels  sees  no  reason  "  why  man  will  not  be  able  to  pro- 
duce life."  Fourier  believed  the  ocean  might  be  turned 
into  lemonade,  etc.,  etc. 

8  Outlooks  from  the  New  Standpoint,  Belfort  Bax,  103. 

7  Passing  of  Capitalism,  Isadore  Ladoff,  99. 

8  Woman,  Bebel,  435. 

9  Socialism  and  Anarchism,  Simons,  14. 

10  LaMonte's  letter  in  Men  vs.  Men,  212. 


H2  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

There  is  but  one  meaning  to  all  such  nonsense.  It  is 
that  there  is  no  God,  that  man  is  a  law  unto  himself, 
that  whatever  he  wills  to  do,  there  is  no  authority  and  no 
law  and  no  power,  human,  natural  or  divine,  to  prevent 
his  doing.  Here  is  the  trouble  with  Socialists  all  along 
the  line:  they  refuse  to  acknowledge  the  limitations  of 
man  or  the  infinity  of  God.  Neglectful,  if  not  con- 
temptuous, of  these  truths,  they  become  involved  in  one 
absurdity  after  another,  finally  mistaking  good  for  evil 
and  sorrow  for  rejoicing.  They  follow  their  blind  lead- 
ers along  dark  ways,  until  they  plunge  into  chaos.  They 
listen  to  the  insane  utterances  of  Marx  and  Engels  and 
Ferri  and  Bebel  and  Blatchford  and  Bax,  of  Herron, 
Thurston,  Untermann,  Ladoff,  Labriola,  and  others,  un- 
til their  minds  are  like  miniature  maelstroms  whose  giddy 
whirlings  carry  them  down  into  intellectual  limbo. 

The  biggest  reality  in  all  this  world  is  the  fact  that 
man's  powers  are  limited.  Where,  we  know  not,  but 
somewhere ;  —  he  cannot  "  live  without  dining  " ;  he  can- 
not create  life.  But  a  reality  that  is  bigger  than  the  very 
world  —  than  all  the  worlds  —  is  God.  To  build  a  gov- 
ernment, a  society,  a  system  of  thought,  a  single  theory, 
in  disregard  of  these  facts  is  as  impossible  as  to  build 
a  city  in  the  air.  To  live  without  knowing  these  facts, 
to  die  without  admitting  them,  is  impossible, —  even  for 
that  curious  species  known  as  a  "  scientific,  class-con- 
scious Socialist."  The  Socialist  unwittingly  admits  this 
impossibility  in  every  line  of  his  philosophy.  He  admits 
it  in  the  very  act  of  denying  the  existence  of  God  and 
the  limitations  of  man.  For  how  could  he  deny  these 
without  having  first  conceived  their  existence?  And 
how  could  he  conceive  their  existence  if  their  existence 


THE  POLITICAL  PRINCIPLE  113 

were  not  conceivably  possible?  But  how  could  their  ex- 
istence be  conceivably  possible  to  man  if  he  has  no  limi- 
tations? And  how  could  he  be  limited  except  by  Some- 
thing? Here  we  get  the  two  big  facts, —  the  limits  of 
the  world,  and  the  limitlessness  of  the  world's  Limitator. 

The  Socialist  admits  these  facts  in  a  more  direct  man- 
ner. From  the  Alpha  to  the  Omega  of  his  teachings, 
every  word  uttered,  every  thought  suggested,  points  to 
increasing  and  rendering  more  accessible  man's  food  sup- 
ply. Why  does  he  not  cut  the  matter  short  by  teaching 
that  man  can  live  without  a  food  supply?  Man  cannot. 
But  why  can  he  not?  Here  we  have  a  definite  mark  of 
a  limit  and  a  Limitator  which  even  Socialists  have  not 
yet  essayed  to  pass  over.  A  limit  and  a  Limitator  means 
a  subject  and  a  Sovereign.  It  means  law  and  Authority. 
It  means  government  for  man  individually,  and  govern- 
ment for  men  in  society.  These  require  the  State,  civil 
law,  ruler  and  ruled  in  society,  however  perfect  it  may  be. 

The  political  principle  of  Socialism,  therefore,  is  false. 


CHAPTER  SIX 
THE  SOCIAL  PRINCIPLE 

I.    SOCIALITY 

Although  much  of  the  bearing  of  Socialism  upon  so- 
cial life  has  been  indicated  in  previous  chapters,  the  better 
understanding  of  our  subject  requires  more  particular 
consideration  of  this  phase.  Social  life,  or  as  it  has  of 
late  years  come  to  be  termed,  sociality,  stands  midway 
between  morality  and  politics.  It  is  distinguished  from 
morality  by  its  having  for  its  basis,  not  universal  prin- 
ciples or  fixed  laws  or  a  common  conscience,  but  local 
traditions,  changing  customs,  divergent  tastes,  tempera- 
ments and  dispositions.  It  is  distinguished  from  politics 
by  its  being  the  expression,  not  of  organized  society  or 
society  in  the  concrete,  but  of  the  individuals  in  society, 
or  society  in  the  abstract.  Putting  it  another  way :  moral- 
ity, practically  speaking,  governs  the  act  of  an  individ- 
ual toward  an  individual;  sociality  governs  the  act  of 
an  individual  toward  a  class;  politics  governs  the  act  of 
a  class  towards  an  individual. 

These  distinctions  are  more  apparent  in  theory  than 
in  practice.  For  in  practice,  the  bounds  of  morality,  so- 
ciality, and  politics  so  frequently  overlap  that  the  lines 
of  demarkation  are  obscured.  Still,  it  may  not  be  gain- 
said that,  with  certain  limitations  understood,  there  are 
many  matters  affecting  social  life  that  are  normally  out- 

114 


THE  SOCIAL  PRINCIPLE  115 

side  the  sphere  of  both  morality  and  politics,  such  as  what 
one  shall  eat,  what  wear,  whom  marry,  where  live,  how 
work,  with  whom  associate,  etc.  In  fact,  it  is  one  of 
those  seeming  paradoxes  to  which  the  poverty  of  human 
language  occasionally  gives  rise,  that  sociality  is  the  in- 
dispensable guaranty  of  individuality.  With  the  passing 
of  man's  freedom  of  choice  in  those  things  affecting  his 
personal  taste  or  temperament  or  his  peculiar  disposi- 
tion, passes  so  much  of  his  individual  self.  This  does 
not  imply  that  man  may  not  relinquish  these  things  with- 
out impairing  his  individuality  so  long  as  he  does  so  vol- 
untarily, but  it  does  imply  that  he  may  not  be  required  to 
relinquish  them.  Indeed,  it  is  through  voluntary  sacri- 
fice that  a  person,  by  putting  aside  immediate  desires  for 
remote  benefits,  exercises  the  highest  order  of  individual- 
ity; and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  in  human  society,  so- 
ciality, which  requires  sacrifice,  and  individuality,  which 
expects  benefit,  are  inseparably  bound  together.  This 
would  not  be  the  case  were  human  beings  not  endowed 
with  rational  faculties.  It  is  peculiarly  a  rational  act 
that  foregoes  immediate  or  temporary  for  remote  or  per- 
manent benefit.  Nor  with  man  would  individuality  be- 
get sociality  in  any  marked  degree,  except  for  his  belief 
in  a  life  hereafter,  where  he  will  reap  for  himself  the 
benefit  which  for  others  he  foregoes  here.  Not  believ- 
ing in  a  future  life,  his  very  faculty  of  reason  would 
prompt  in  man  the  most  exclusive  individuality  in  this 
life  and  sociality  would  be  incompatible  with  self  interest 
and  would  naturally  cease  to  exist. 

If  we  consider  on  the  one  hand  that  Socialism  is  the 
evolution  of  mechanical  forces  that  work  blindly  toward 
an  inevitable  end,  we  must  conclude  that  sociality,  as  that 


n6  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

term  is  defined,  can  be  regarded  by  it  as  only  a  sort  of 
will-o'-the-wisp  that  lures  mankind  away  from  the  solid 
ground  of  physical  necessity  to  no  purpose.  If  we  con- 
sider on  the  other  hand  that  Socialism  is  an  all-compre- 
hensive political  movement  that  purposes  to  fix  the  last 
detail  of  human  conduct,  we  must  conclude  that  under 
its  regime,  human  liberty,  and  therefore  human  happi- 
ness, would  be  reduced  to  a  minimum.  Both  of  these 
ideas  are  so  repugnant  to  the  common  sense  of  man  that 
we  should  expect  to  find  in  Socialism  at  least  a  promise 
of  better  things  to  account  for  its  growing  popularity. 
And  we  do  find  such  a  promise,  indeed,  we  find  many 
such  promises,  in  Socialist  propaganda.  But  they  are 
only  promises,  and  the  more  numerous  they  are,  and  the 
brighter  the  prospect  they  hold  out,  the  more  hopeless  be- 
comes their  realization  and  the  more  disappointed  will  be 
they  who  put  faith  in  them. 

II.     SOCIAL  CLASSES 

Society  is  made  up  of  classes.  History  does  not  men- 
tion a  society  that  was  ever  constituted  otherwise.  There 
is  no  sound  basis  for  a  belief  that  there  ever  was  or 
ever  will  be  one  constituted  otherwise.  And  it  is  to  be 
hoped  not.  For  classes  are  desirable,  if  not  essential. 
We  are  assured  that  there  are  classes  among  the  angels 
and  that  in  the  "  Father's  House "  there  are  many 
mansions. 

But  there  are  classes  and  classes.  There  are  classes 
that  spring  from  the  natural  differences  to  be  found  in 
the  character,  the  competency,  the  gifts,  the  graces, — 
physical,  mental,  moral  and  spiritual, —  of  different  per- 
sons. These  are  both  necessary  and  desirable.  They 


THE  SOCIAL  PRINCIPLE  117 

obtain  everywhere;  and  they  endure.  Without  them 
achievement  would  be  impossible  and  life  desolate. 
Again  there  are  classes  that  rest  on  artificial  distinctions 
created  in  society.  These  come  and  go;  they  are  often 
unnecessary.  They  may  or  may  not  be  desirable. 
They  clearly  are  not  desirable  in  so  far  as  their  artificial 
lines  interfere  with  the  proper  adjustment,  according  to 
class,  of  the  natural  differences  existing  among  men, 
which  they  not  infrequently  do. 

The  lines  that  separate  the  natural  classes  are  elastic, 
variable  and  never  altogether  certain.  The  transition 
from  one  class  to  another  is  natural,  largely  automatic, 
dependent  upon  merit,  as  evidenced  by  effort  and  achieve- 
ment. The  lines  that  separate  the  artificial  classes  are 
rigid,  fixed,  and  clearly  drawn.  Membership  in  them  is 
arbitrarily  controlled  and  often  dependent  upon  favor, 
intrigue,  or  the  like.  There  are  numerous  classes  of  each 
type  in  most  societies.  One  person  may  at  the  same  time 
be  a  member  of  several  of  each  type.  A  single  class  may 
combine  the  characteristics  of  both  types,  being  neither 
altogether  natural  nor  yet  wholly  artificial,  but  at  the 
same  time  a  distinct  class.  Indeed,  it  may  be  said  that 
modern  society  is  made  up  of  so  many  intricate  phases 
that  most  classes  present  such  a  combination ;  and  hence, 
most  of  them  are  likely  to  present  some  undesirable 
features.  By  unduly  stressing  these  features,  sensational 
exploiters,  working  upon  the  plastic  minds  of  certain 
among  the  classes,  have  of  late  years  aroused  in  them 
a  spirit  of  opposition  to  other  classes,  and  Socialist  prop- 
agandists take  advantage  of  this  spirit  to  win  favor  for 
the  doctrine  that  all  class  distinctions  are  unjustifiable  in 
principle  and  intolerable  in  fact,  arising  from  an  institu- 


u8  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

tionalized  system  of  robbery  and  resulting  in  an  incessant 
and  deadly  conflict. 

This  doctrine  does  not  conform  to  the  truth  anywhere 
along  the  line,  not  even  at  the  point  where  the  repre- 
hensible traits  of  classes  stand  out.  In  the  main,  classes 
originate  in  nature's  universal  variety ;  and  they  result 
in  mutual  aid,  not  in  conflict.  To  condemn  them  in  toto 
on  account  of  some  objectionable  features,  is  much  like 
inveighing  against  the  law  of  life  and  growth  because  of 
the  accidental  or  unexplained  instances  of  arrested  de- 
velopment to  be  observed  throughout  nature.  DeTun- 
zlemann,  in  The  Superstition  Called  Socialism,  likens 
this  indiscriminate  censure  of  class  distinctions  to  the  act 
of  a  gardener  who,  in  order  to  be  rid  of  the  weeds  in  his 
garden,  plows  up  the  garden  itself,  destroying  fruit  and 
flowers  with  the  noxious  plants.  In  his  Man  Without  a 
Country,  Edward  Everett  Hale  has  drawn  a  vivid  picture 
of  the  unhappy  situation  of  a  classless  man,  and  if  we 
raise  this  picture  to  the  nth  power,  we  can  imagine  what 
a  society  without  classes  would  be. 

It  has  been  said  that  there  is  no  solitude  like  the  soli- 
tude of  a  great  city.  By  analogy  it  would  seem  that  no 
exile  would  so  completely  isolate  man  from  his  fellows 
as  to  be  a  member  of  a  classless  society.  Classes  beget 
sociality.  Sociality  preserves  individuality.  Individu- 
ality marks  man  off  from  the  rest  of  the  animal  world. 
The  teaching  that  would  affect  the  status  of  these  things 
must  be  examined  critically.  The  teaching  that  would 
abolish  them  must  be  rejected.  The  Socialist  movement, 
which  in  this  particular  is  a  class-conscious  movement 
toward  a  classless  society,  cannot  secure  the  approval  of 
right-thinking  men.  It  strikes  down  all  that  is  most 


THE  SOCIAL  PRINCIPLE  119 

precious  to  earthly  existence  and  it  raises  a  disconsolate 
cry  from  hearts  that  would  weep  over  the  ruins  of 
civilization. 

III.    CLASS-CONSCIOUSNESS 

The  dominant  characteristic  of  Socialism,  as  viewed 
from  the  standpoint  of  social  life,  is  its  doctrine  of  class- 
consciousness.  From  its  economic  basis  that  labor 
creates  all  value,  to  the  ultimate  development  of  its 
philosophy  and  its  politics,  the  Socialist  movement  is 
marked  by  a  uniform  trend  in  the  direction  of  class-con- 
sciousness. The  chief  aim  of  all  Socialist  endeavor  is  to 
arouse  in  the  members  of  the  working  class  a  keen 
realization  of  common  interest  and  a  militant  spirit  of 
common  purpose,  such  as  will  exclude  all  other  classes 
from  consideration,  and  it  counts  no  effort  too  costly 
and  no  sacrifice  too  great  that  makes  toward  this  end. 
It  is  not  enough  that  the  individuals  of  this  class  believe 
that  they  have  a  common  interest  and  a  common  aim ; 
they  must  become  utterly  absorbed  by  this  belief  to  the 
point  of  self-effacement,  so  that  not  so  much  as  a  ripple 
may  "  disturb  the  smooth-flowing  surface  of  proletarian 
thought." 

The  doctrine  of  class-consciousness  rests  upon  the 
theory  of  the  class-struggle,  which  holds  that  all  society 
is  divided  into  capitalists  and  workingmen,  and  that  be- 
tween these  classes  there  exists  a  deadly  and  interminable 
conflict.  This  theory  does  not  allow  the  existence  of  any 
other  class  than  these  two,  and  of  these  two  only  the 
working  class  or  the  proletariat  ought  of  right  to  exist. 
Perhaps  not  all  Socialists  are  so  bold  as  London,  who 
says :  "  There  are  no  good  capitalists  and  no  bad  work- 


120  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

ingmen ;  every  capitalist  is  our  enemy  and  every  work- 
ingman  our  friend,"  *  but  nearly  if  not  quite  all  subscribe 
to  practically  the  same  idea  set  out  in  the  Socialist  plat- 
form in  the  declaration  that  "  the  working  class  is  the 
only  class  that  has  the  right  to  be,"  and  nearly  all  enter- 
tain the  belief  expressed  by  Herron  when  he  says  that, 
"  until  the  working  class  realizes  that  it  is  the  disin- 
herited owner  of  the  world  and  that  there  is  no  possible 
reconciliation  or  compromise  between  it  and  the  em- 
ploying class,  its  efforts  will  be  blind  and  helpless,  beaten, 
baffled  and  betrayed."  2 

The  Socialists  uniformly  claim  that  in  the  war  of  the 
classes  they  have  espoused  the  cause  of  the  working  class 
or  the  propertyless  class,  often  by  them  referred  to  as 
the  proletariat.  Rather,  they  claim  that  the  Socialist 
movement  is  a  movement  of  the  proletariat.  "  The  in- 
terests of  the  proletarian,"  says  Austin  Lewis,  "  are  the 
materialization  of  Socialist  philosophy;  the  ideas  of  the 
proletariat  are  the  ideas  of  Socialism;  the  aspirations  of 
the  proletariat  are  the  aspirations  of  Socialism;  the 
triumph  of  Socialism  will  be  the  triumph  of  the  prole- 
tariat. There  can  be  no  question  of  the  inseparability 
of  Socialism  and  the  proletariat.  The  social  revolution 
is  admittedly  dependent  upon  the  self-conscious  growth 
of  the  proletarian  class.  In  so  far  as  the  Socialist  move- 
ment stands  for  the  proletarian  class,  it  is  in  accord  with 
fundamental  Socialist  doctrines;  wherever  it  steps  aside 
from  its  service  to  the  proletariat,  it  is  recreant  to  them. 
The  strength  of  the  proletariat  depends,  not  upon  the 
votes  it  polls,  or  the  parliamentary  seats  it  occupies,  or 

1  Revolution  (Yale  address,  1906). 

2  Revolution  to  Revolution,  4. 


THE  SOCIAL  PRINCIPLE  121 

the  number  of  municipalities  it  controls  in  the  name  of 
Socialism,  but  upon  the  degree  with  which  it  pursues  the 
interests  of  the  proletarian  exclusively." 3  Liebknecht 
says :  "  For  our  party  and  for  our  party  tactics,  there 
is  but  one  valid  basis,  the  basis  of  the  class-struggle. 
The  founders  of  our  party,  Marx,  Engels  and  Lassalle, 
impressed  upon  the  workingmen  the  necessity  of  the  class 
character  of  our  movement  so  deeply  that  down  to  a  very 
recent  time  there  was  no  getting  off  the  track,  no  devi- 
ating." * 

The  deviations  suggested  by  Liebknecht  are  to  be 
found  chiefly  among  English-speaking  Socialists.  Hynd- 
man  and  McDonald  vigorously  repel  the  Socialist  idea  of 
a  class  division  and  the  consequent  class-war  and  class- 
conscious  doctrine.  Hyndman  affirms  that  there  are 
more  than  two  economic  classes  in  every  community, 
and  he  pointedly  suggests  the  trinity  of  laborer,  farmer, 
and  landlord  as  being  in  the  field  of  agriculture  "  as  com- 
pact a  little  set  of  antagonisms  within  this  field  as  any  in 
our  society."  5  McDonald  goes  a  step  further,  and  points 
out  intellectual  and  moral  classes  as  well  as  economic: 
"  The  antagonisms  of  society  are  not  merely  economic ; 
they  are  also  intellectual  and  moral.  The  richest  pos- 
session of  any  man  is  an  approving  conscience.  The 
scheme  by  which  humanity  evolves  to  higher  stages  of 
existence  is  either  rational  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  not,  then, 
all  efforts  to  hasten  reform  —  Socialism  included  —  are 
waste  efforts.  If  it  is  rational,  a  man  seeking  intellectual 
peace  as  well  as  economic  security  will  have  to  choose 

8  The  Militant  Proletariat,  7,  13. 

4  No  Compromise. 

6  Socialism  and  Society,  135. 


122  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

which  he  is  to  pursue."  6  Mr.  McDonald  fails  to  con- 
sider that  Socialist  philosophy  allows  that  a  thing,  or  no 
thing,  can  be  both  rational  and  non-rational,  or  neither 
rational  or  non-rational,  or  both  and  neither,  all  at  the 
same  time ;  hence,  while  his  reasoning  appeals  to  us  with 
telling  force,  it  is  lost  upon  his  "  scientific  "  comrades. 
But  such  views  as  those  of  Hyndman  and  McDonald 
are  notable  for  their  rarity  among  Socialists.  They  are 
introduced  here  as  exceptions  that  prove  the  rule  and  to 
fix  more  definitely  the  hard  and  fast  Socialist  dogma  of  a 
class-war  that  can  never  be  terminated  except  through  the 
class-consciousness  of  the  proletariat.  We  are  not  con- 
fined to  the  expressions  of  individual  Socialists  on  this 
point,  but  have  in  addition,  the  official  utterances  of  the 
Socialist  organizations  of  all  countries;  and,  while  we 
realize  that  these  utterances  are  in  general  unreliable, 
since  they  are  tactical  expressions  originating  in  motives 
of  expediency,  still,  as  bearing  upon  the  question  under 
immediate  discussion,  it  seems  that  in  view  of  their  uni- 
formity they  may  not  be  summarily  rejected.  The  first 
principle  set  out  in  the  famous  Communist  Manifesto  is 
that  "  The  history  of  hitherto  existing  societies  is  the 
history  of  the  class-struggle,"  and  the  last  sentence  in 
that  document  is  a  dramatic  appeal  to  the  proletarian 
classes  of  the  world :  "  Proletarians  of  all  countries, 
unite !  "  These  words  "  have  become  the  universal  war 
cry  of  Socialism ;  they  may  be  regarded  as  the  very  es- 
sence of  the  Socialist  movement."  7  To  the  same  effect 
is  the  Erfurt  Program :  "  The  class  struggle  between  the 
bourgeoisie  and  the  proletariat  is  the  common  mark  of 

6  Socialism  and  Society,  135-140. 

7  The  Militant  Proletariat,  A.  Lewis,  7. 


THE  SOCIAL  PRINCIPLE  123 

all  industrial  countries,  it  divides  modern  society  into 
two  opposing  camps,  and  the  warfare  between  them  con- 
stantly increases  in  bitterness."  The  Socialist  Party  plat- 
form adopted  at  Chicago,  in  1908,  is  very  similar:  "  The 
struggle  between  the  wage  worker  and  the  capitalist 
grows  ever  fiercer  and  has  now  become  the  only  vital 
issue  before  the  American  people  .  .  .  wage  workers  are 
the  most  determined  and  irreconcilable  antagonists  of 
capitalists,  .  .  .  have  the  most  direct  interest  in  abolish- 
ing the  capitalist  system."  The  Indianapolis  platform, 
of  1912,  sets  the  matter  out  somewhat  more  fully: 
"  Society  is  divided  into  two  warring  groups  or  classes, 
based  upon  material  (economic)  interests.  .  .  .  The 
working  class  vastly  outnumbers  the  capitalist  class. 
Lacking  effective  organization  and  class  solidarity  (class- 
consciousness),  this  class  is  unable  to  enforce  its  will. 
Given  such  class  solidarity  and  effective  organization,  the 
workers  will  have  the  power  to  make  all  laws  and  control 
all  industry  in  their  own  interests.  .  .  .  The  Socialist 
Party  is  the  political  expression  of  the  interests  of  the 
workers.  The  only  reliance  left  the  workers  is  economic 
organization  and  political  power.  By  the  intelligent  and 
class-conscious  use  of  these  they  may  successfully  resist 
the  capitalist  class,  break  the  fetters  of  wage  slavery  and 
fit  themselves  for  the  future  society  which  is  to  displace 
the  capitalist  system.  .  .  .  Such  measures  of  relief  as  we 
may  be  able  to  force  from  capitalism  are  but  a  preparation 
of  the  workers  to  seize  the  whole  powers  of  government, 
in  order  that  they  may  lay  hold  of  the  whole  system  of 
socialized  industry  and  thus  come  into  their  rightful 
inheritance." 

Before  considering  what  is  involved  in  this  doctrine  of 


124  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

proletarian  class-consciousness,  we  should  learn,  if  pos- 
sible, who  are  included  in  this  class.  This  large  word 
has  been  forced  into  English  usage  through  the  insistent 
pedantry  of  Socialist  writers.  Its  application  is  not 
strictly  denned.  It  is  a  term  derived  from  the  legal 
phraseology  of  ancient  Rome,  where  there  existed  a  class 
known  as  the  proletarii,  the  nearest  equivalent  to  which 
in  modern  society  perhaps  is  the  class  of  vagrants.  Pro- 
letaire  was  introduced  into  French  literature  about  the 
time  of  the  first  Revolution,  to  designate  persons  without 
estate  or  position  who  neither  worked  nor  begged.  It  is 
used  in  the  Communist  Manifesto  to  designate  the  class 
of  persons  represented  in  the  Socialist  movement.  In  a 
note  to  an  annotated  edition  of  this  well-known  pro- 
nunciamento,  Engels  says  that  the  term  proletariat 
"  means  the  class  of  modern  wage-laborers  who,  having 
no  means  of  production  of  their  own,  are  reduced  to  sell- 
ing their  labor  in  order  to  live."  But  the  accuracy  of  this 
definition  is  placed  in  doubt  by  a  paragraph  of  the  Mani- 
festo that  reads :  "  Capitalism  has  converted  the  physi- 
cian, the  lawyer,  the  priest,  the  poet,  the  man  of  science, 
into  its  paid  wage-laborers.  The  lower  strata  of  the 
middle  class  —  small  trades-people,  shopkeepers,  retired 
tradesmen  generally,  handicraftsmen,  and  peasants  —  all 
these  gradually  sink  into  the  proletariat."  As  used  gen- 
erally in  Socialist  literature,  the  words  workingmen, 
wage-earners,  servants,  slaves,  employed  classes,  proper- 
tyless  classes,  and  proletarians  are  synonymous.  The 
Indianapolis  platform  (1912)  defines  the  working  class 
as  including  "  all  those  persons  who  are  compelled  to 
work  for  a  living,  whether  by  hand  or  brain,  in  shop  or 
mines,  or  upon  the  soil."  Thus  defined,  the  term  prole- 


THE  SOCIAL  PRINCIPLE  125 

tariat  includes  persons  of  skill  and  ability;  "but  only  a 
scant  minority  of  these  come  into  the  Socialist  move- 
ment," says  the  Socialist  Lewis,  "  and  such  as  come,  gen- 
erally speaking,  are  but  of  dubious  value.  The  most 
part  consists  of  those  who  are  unable  to  succeed  in  their 
chosen  vocations.  They  come  in  as  a  broken  minority, 
usually  bankrupt,  not  only  economically,  but  intellectually 
as  well."  8 

In  fine,  socially  speaking,  Socialism  appears  to  be  a 
sort  of  rallying  ground  where  not  only  the  down-trodden 
of  society,  but  the  incompetent,  the  indigent,  the  unfit, 
—  in  a  word,  the  bankrupt,  whether  so  through  their 
own  fault  or  the  fault  of  others,  may  gather  together  in 
one  confused  class  of  restless,  discontented,  clamoring 
"proletarians,"  who  in  one  way  or  another  are  at  war 
with  the  rest  of  mankind  for  real  or  fancied  wrongs  that 
they  have  suffered.  That  their  warring  may  prove  to 
some  purpose,  Socialism  would  eradicate  all  differences 
and  distinctions  within  this  class  and  through  the  magic 
of  the  phrase  "  class-conscious,"  crystallize  its  nonde- 
script members  into  a  huge,  unyielding  mass,  that,  with 
the  original  impulse  given  to  its  beaten  units,  will  move 
forward  as  a  solid  body  to  displace  all  other  bodies  that 
it  cannot  crush.  We  say  "  forward  "  through  force  of 
habit.  Thinking  of  a  considerable  movement  as  being 
other  than  forward  is  so  unusual  that  one  off-hand  links 
the  united  efforts  of  the  defeated  classes  with  the  for- 
ward idea.  But,  in  truth,  this  class-conscious  move- 
ment is  not  forward ;  at  least  it  is  not  consistently  for- 
ward. Its  direction  is  not  toward  any  point,  but  merely 

s  The  Militant  Proletariat,  35. 


126  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

against  an  object.  It  is  a  bodily  movement  of  the  losers 
against  the  winners  in  the  race  for  social  achievement, 
wherein  the  former  strive,  not  to  outstrip  the  latter  in 
other  trials  of  skill,  but  to  weaken  and  hinder  them  and 
by  sheer  force  of  numbers,  all  working  to  one  purpose, 
to  put  them  forever  out  of  the  race,  so  that  running  will 
be  no  longer  necessary,  but  only  standing  still. 

That  social  life  would  be  reduced  to  a  very  low  plane 
by  the  scheme  suggested  in  the  class-conscious  idea,  is 
a  conclusion  that  is  not  open  to  question.  Kautsky  has 
drawn  a  vivid  word-picture  of  what  life  would  mean  to 
the  individual  in  a  society  where  this  idea  prevailed.  He 
portrays  such  a  society  as  an  entity  of  awe-inspiring 
proportions,  whose  crushing  effect  on  the  individual  is 
so  overpowering  that  the  strongest  has  not  the  strength 
to  dissent  from  the  public  mind.  "  It  needs  no  further 
means,"  he  says,  "  to  secure  the  undisturbed  course  of 
social  life."9  His  dread  picture  would  fill  the  hearts 
of  free  men  with  a  paralysing  fear,  were  there  any 
chance  that  the  insane  idea  of  class-consciousness  could 
ever  be  other  than  insane. 

Of  far  more  importance,  however,  is  the  result  pro- 
duced in  society  by  the  energetic  teaching  of  class-con- 
sciousness. For  the  very  idea  is  enervating  and  de- 
grading, destructive  alike  of  the  good  citizenship,  good 
morals,  and  self-respect  of  those  who  subscribe  to  it 
and  live  up  to  its  consequences.  That  this  is  not  mere 
invective  is  amply  attested  by  all  class-conscious  Social- 
ists who  deal  frankly  with  the  subject.  There  are  few 
who  are  so  brutally  frank  as  Robert  Blatchford,  but  we 
are  aware  of  none  who  have  taken  issue  with  Blatch- 

9  Ethics  and  the  Materialistic  Conception  of  History,  188. 


THE  SOCIAL  PRINCIPLE  127 

ford's  views.  He  says :  "  There  are  many  who  think 
that  if  all  the  workers  were  to  give  up  drink,  work 
hard,  live  sparingly,  save  their  earnings,  they  would  all 
be  happy  and  prosperous.  .  .  .  Now,  I  know  that  belief 
to  be  all  wrong.  I  know  that  if  every  working  man  and 
woman  in  England  turned  teetotaler  to-morrow,  if  they 
all  worked  like  niggers,  if  they  worked  twelve  hours  a 
day,  if  they  lived  on  oatmeal  and  water,  and  if  they 
saved  every  farthing  they  could  spare,  at  the  end  of 
twenty  years  they  would  be  a  great  deal  worse  off  than 
they  are  to-day.  Sobriety,  thrift,  industry,  skill,  self- 
denial,  holiness  .  .  .  simply  enrich  the  idle  and  wicked 
and  reduce  the  industrious  and  righteous  to  slavery. 
Teetotalism  will  not  do,  saving  will  not  do,  increased 
skill  will  not  do.  Nothing  will  do  but  Socialism.  I 
mean  to  make  these  things  plain  if  it  takes  me  till  Christ- 
mas. ...  Is  it  not  true  that  in  France,  in  Germany,  and 
all  other  countries  where  the  workers  live  more  sparingly 
and  are  more  temperate  than  the  workers  are  in  Eng- 
land, the  wages  are  lower  and  the  hours  of  work  longer? 
And  is  it  not  true  that  the  Chinese  and  the  Hindoos,  who 
are  the  most  temperate  and  the  most  thrifty  people  in 
the  world,  are  the  worst  paid  ?  .  .  .  Don't  you  see  that  if 
the  Lancashire  workers  would  live  on  rice  and  water,  the 
masters  would  soon  have  their  wages  down  to  the  rice 
and  water  point  ?  "  10  Is  it  to  be  supposed  that  teaching 
like  this  will  promote  the  practice  of  the  virtues  here 
viewed  as  harmful  to  workers?  If  those  virtues  only  go 
to  enrich  the  idle,  while  they  enslave  the  industrious, 

10  Imprudent  Marriages,  4-19.  Cf.  also,  Merrie  England,  by 
Blatchford,  chaps,  xx  and  xxi,  on  "  Industry "  and  "  Environ- 
ment." 


128  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

are  not  Haywood  and  Bohn  correct  in  saying :  "  It  is 
ridiculous  for  sane  people  to  work  all  day  and  every 
day ;  '  The  less  work  the  better,'  is  the  motto  for  work- 
ers "  ?  "  Is  not  Kauff  man  suggesting  the  true  Socialist 
tactic  when  he  says  that  "  the  employee  who  does  as 
little  as  he  may  do  and  still  hold  his  job,  decreases  by 
just  so  much  his  employer's  profit"?12  In  an  essay  en- 
titled, "  Wage-Labor  and  Capital,"  Marx  says :  "  The 
more  the  working  man  labors,  the  less  reward  he  re- 
ceives for  it;  for  this  simple  reason  —  he  competes 
against  his  fellow  workmen,  and  thus  compels  them  to 
compete  against  him,  and  thus,  as  a  last  result,  he  com- 
petes against  himself." 

This  is  truly  a  remarkable  "  discovery."  But  Marx 
made  one  still  more  remarkable.  After  discovering  that 
the  more  the  workingman  works,  the  less  he  gets  in  re- 
turn, he  discovered  that  the  more  he  gets  in  return,  the 
worse  off  he  is;  higher  wages  means  lower  pay  in  the 
end.  Marx  "  reasons  "  on  this  point  as  follows :  "  Al- 
though [when  wages  are  higher]  the  laborer  has  a  larger 
amount  of  commodities  at  his  disposal  than  he  had  be- 
fore, yet  his  wages  have  nevertheless  diminished  in  pro- 
portion to  the  capitalist's  gain.  He  has  to  produce  a 
larger  amount  of  surplus  value  than  he  did  before.  The 
value  of  capital  is  raised  in  proportion  to  the  value  of 
labor  and  the  capitalist  commands  a  larger  amount  of 
labor  with  the  same  amount  of  capital.  The  power  of 
the  capitalist  class  over  the  laboring  class  is  increased, 
the  social  position  of  the  laborer  has  deteriorated."  13 

11  Industrial  Unionism,  62. 

12  What  Is  Socialism?  no. 

1S  Wage-Labor  and  Capital,  21. 


THE  SOCIAL  PRINCIPLE  129 

The  deceptive  character  of  a  higher  wage  thus  imag- 
ined by  Marx  is  a  common  mark  supposed  by  Socialists 
to  attach  to  all  benefits  that  workingmen  acquire  or  have 
acquired  through  long  bleeding  centuries.  "  Viewed 
from  the  absolute  standpoint,"  says  Vail,  "  the  laborer 
may  enjoy  more  privileges  to-day  than  in  years  gone 
by;  but  from  the  relative  standpoint  —  his  condition  as 
compared  to  other  classes  —  there  is  a  greater  gulf  sepa- 
rating him  from  the  classes  above  than  ever  before."  14 
"  It  is  this  feature  of  present-day  progress  that  Social- 
ists view  as  the  very  essence  of  injustice,"  says  Walling; 
"  no  matter  though  there  is  a  slight  and  continuous  or 
even  a  considerable  progress  of  the  working  class,  the 
question  for  them  is  not  whether  from  time  to  time  more 
falls  to  the  workingman,  but  what  he  gets  of  the  whole. 
...  It  is  absurd  to  tell  the  workingman  that  the  ad- 
vance he  is  making  either  through  improvements  as  to 
wages  and  hours,  or  through  political  and  social  reforms, 
ought  to  blind  him  to  the  possibilities  of  civilization, 
which  will  remain  out  of  his  reach  until  his  share  in 
the  income  of  society  is  increased  to  the  point  that  he 
receives  the  total  product."  15  It  is  on  this  account  that 
Kautsky  says :  "  The  class  struggle  becomes  more  bitter 
the  longer  it  lasts ;  the  more  capable  of  struggle  the  op- 
ponents become,  the  more  important  become  the  differ- 
ences in  the  conditions  of  life,  the  more  the  capitalists 
raise  themselves  above  the  proletariat' 16  Therefore,  it 
is  not  so  much  a  question  of  improving  the  workingman's 
condition,  as  it  is  of  bringing  down  the  capitalist. 

14  Principles  of  Scientific  Socialism,  211. 

15  Socialism  as  It  Is,  281. 

16  Die  Neue  Zeit,  Oct.  27,  1911. 


130  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Class-consciousness  means  the  unification  of  all  envious 
and  hateful  passions  rather  than  an  organized  sentiment 
crying  for  justice.  "If  there  were  democracy  in  our 
poverty,"  says  John  Spargo,  who  by  the  way  is  far  from 
poverty  stricken,  "  so  that  none  were  idle  or  rich,  while 
the  rest  toiled  in  poverty,  it  would  be  our  supreme  glory 
to  bear  it  with  courage."  17 

The  spirit  evinced  in  these  writings  reminds  one  of 
Christ's  parable  of  the  master  and  the  vineyard.  The 
master  hired  workers  about  the  sixth  and  ninth  hours,  and 
they  agreed  to  work  for  a  penny.  Then  about  the  elev- 
enth hour  he  set  others  to  work,  and  when  the  day 
was  done,  he  gave  every  man  a  penny.  But  those  who 
had  worked  longer  grumbled,  not  because  they  had  not 
received  their  share,  but  because  the  others  received  as 
much  as  they.  The  master's  rebuke  to  the  envious 
workers  is  sublime ;  and  fitting  here :  "  Friend,  I  do  thee 
no  wrong.  Is  thine  eye  evil  because  I  am  good?  Take 
what  is  thine  and  go  thy  way."  Socialists  are  like  these 
grumblers.  They  have  been  working, —  we  will  grant, 
though  as  to  many  it  is  too  much  to  grant, —  since  an 
early  hour  of  the  Long  Day.  Their  position  has  con- 
stantly improved  since  the  beginning;  their  hours  have 
been  shortened,  their  wages  have  been  increased,  their 
labor  has  been  lightened,  their  surroundings  have  been 
made  safe,  wholesome,  and  even  attractive  as  compared 
to  what  they  were ;  they1  enjoy  more  privileges  now  than 
ever  before  and  their  rights  are  better  secured,  and  these 
benefits  are  being  multiplied  steadily  as  the  Long  Day 
passes.  But  they  are  not  satisfied.  They  grumble  be- 
cause others  fare  better  than  they.  How  well  they  really 

17  The  Common  Sense  of  Socialism,  46. 


THE  SOCIAL  PRINCIPLE  131 

fare,  how  well  they  might  fare  did  others  not  fare  bet- 
ter, they  never  pause  to  consider.  They  see  others  en- 
joying privileges  that  they  do  not  and  their  eye  is  "  evil." 
They  are  blind  to  the  fact  that  those  whom  they  envy 
have  advanced  over  obstacles  that  have  baffled  them- 
selves, have  gone  forward  at  a  pace  which  they  cannot 
match.  They  are  blind  to  the  uplift  made  possible  to 
them  only  through  the  advance  of  others.  Envy  is  al- 
ways blind.  It  fills  the  brain  with  a  distorted  image 
that  shuts  out  the  light  on  all  sides.  It  fills  the  heart 
with  a  bitter  passion  that  rises  up  to  assail  the  mind 
and  strikes  to  unseat  reason.  It  is  no  wonder  that  class- 
conscious  Socialists  discard  merit,  ignore  justice,  decry 
virtue!  They  are  obsessed  with  envy  at  the  welfare  of 
others,  and  all  angles  of  their  mental  vision  are  focused 
by  this  light-absorbing  passion.  Wherever  their  teach- 
ings are  permitted  to  take  root,  the  effect  on  social  life 
cannot  be  other  than  mischievous,  and  if  by  any  chance 
they  should  come  to  bear  full  fruit,  the  beauty  and  the 
glory  of  our  civilization  seem  bound  to  perish  as  a  con- 
sequence. It  is  not  sufficient  consolation  for  such  a  fatal 
issue  that  the  evils  afflicting  society  possibly  would  be 
abated  thereby.  Deplorable  as  these  evils  are,  inexcus- 
able as  some  of  them  are,  we 

"  Rather  bear  the  ills  we  have 
Than  fly  to  those  we  know  not  of." 

There  is  no  comfort  to  be  found  in  the  cock-sure  asser- 
tions of  Socialists,  who  would  "  blot  out  God  from  the 
universe,"  leave  "  Heaven  to  the  angels  and  the  spar- 
rows," and  create  a  perpetual  paradise  in  this  vale  of 


132  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

tears.     They  remind  us  of  the  familiar  lines  of  De  Mor- 
gan's Budget  of  Paradoxes;  they 

"  Chirp,  chirp,  chirp  with  a  grasshopper's  glee  — 
We're  the  lamps  of  the  universe,  we,  we !  we ! " 

The  economics  of  Socialism  would  deprive  man  of 
property ;  its  philosophy  would  deprive  him  of  reason ;  its 
religion  would  deprive  him  of  God;  its  class-conscious 
politics  would  fittingly  crown  this  desolate  picture  by 
sweeping  out  of  his  life  all  incentive  and  all  hope  for 
individual  enterprise  and  achievement. 


SECOND  PART 
HISTORY  OF  SOCIALISM 


CHAPTER  ONE 
THE  IDEA 

I.     PLATONIC 

"  Now,  then,  let  us  construct  our  imaginary  city  from 
the  beginning."  These  words  of  the  great  Athenian  phi- 
losopher shadow  forth  the  basis  of  all  Socialistic  ideas. 
They  imply  a  belief  that  society  can  be  constructed 
along  artificial  and  arbitrary  lines,  and  this  belief  is  a 
necessary  prerequisite  of  all  agitation  looking  to  the  so- 
cialization of  society.  This  belief  is  not  original  with 
Plato.  It  obtained  probably  a  thousand  years  before 
his  time.  In  Crete,  as  early  as  1300  B.  c.,  all  civic  in- 
stitutions were  constructed  upon  an  artificial  basis.  The 
Carthaginian  and  Lacedaemonian  institutions  were  of  a 
like  character.  The  institutions  and  laws  given  by  Ly- 
curgus  to  Sparta  probably  were  the  chief  source  of 
Plato's  inspiration,  though  he  seems  also  to  have  drawn 
freely  from  Solon,  the  Athenian  lawgiver,  Charondas, 
who  legislated  for  the  Chalcidian  cities  in  Italy  and 
Sicily,  Philolaus,  the  Theban,  and  Hippodamus  of  Mile- 
tus, the  last  of  whom  is  said  by  Aristotle  to  be  "  the  first 
person  not  a  statesman  who  made  inquiries  about  the 
best  form  of  government  and  who  must  be  credited  with 
having  invented  the  art  of  planning  cities." 

But  if  not  the  inventor,  Plato  is  the  undisputed  mas- 
ter of  the  art  of  constructing  a  society  on  an  artificial 


136  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

basis.  In  all  of  his  "  Dialogues,"  but  principally  in  his 
Republic  and  Laws,  the  aim  that  seems  ever  uppermost 
in  his  mind  is  to  teach  the  practicability  of  constructing 
a  perfect  State  by  arbitrary  process.  He  is  unquestion- 
ably the  best  exponent  of  this  general  idea  who  has  yet 
appeared.  St.  Augustine,  More,  Campanella,  Bacon, 
Harrington,  Saint-Simon,  Morelly,  Rousseau,  and  all 
other  writers  who  have  attempted  in  philosophy  or  ro- 
mance to  establish  the  feasibility  of  an  ideal  common- 
wealth, have  largely  drawn  their  inspiration,  if  not  their 
ideas,  from  Plato.  In  considering  the  history  of  the 
Socialist  Idea,  therefore,  it  is  of  first  importance  to  con- 
sider some  of  his  views  and  teachings. 

Plato  regarded  society  as  a  self-conscious  thing,  capa- 
ble of  controlling  its  own  form  and  process.  He  had 
the  utmost  confidence  in  the  wisdom  of  the  composite 
mind.  He  believed  that  it  was  only  necessary  to  per- 
fect the  machinery  of  society  in  order  to  make  the  mem- 
bers of  society  perfect.  Hence,  in  his  ideal  common- 
wealth, the  life  of  the  individual  is  absorbed  in  the  life 
of  the  social  being,  and  the  former  is  regulated  and  de- 
termined by  the  latter.  This  applies  to  every  detail  of 
life.  Beginning  with  the  new-born  babe,  which  Plato 
would  take  from  the  mother's  breast  to  deliver  into  the 
hands  of  public  nurses,  and  continuing  throughout  life, 
each  person  in  his  Republic  has  his  manners,  his 
tastes,  his  habits,  his  education,  his  work,  his  pleasures 
dictated  by  the  "  governors "  of  society.  Property  is 
held  in  common ;  women  are  known  in  common ;  every- 
thing is  enjoyed  in  common  in  his  ideal  commonwealth. 
The  government  is  conducted  by  philosophers,  who  are 
specially  fitted  and  trained  for  this  purpose.  Citizens  are 


THE  IDEA  137 

forbidden  to  trade,  but  required  to  work.  Those  who 
will  not  work  are  suffered  to  die,  and  those  who  cannot, 
are  killed.  The  disagreeable  work  is  done  by  slaves, 
who  are  usually  criminals.  In  all  occupations,  women 
share  the  burden  equally  with  men.  Plato  assumes  that 
the  simple  fact  that  women  bear  children,  while  men  only 
beget  them,  ought  not  to  give  rise  to  any  greater  differ- 
ences between  men  and  women  than  obtain  between  the 
male  and  the  female  in  the  animal  kingdom.  Hence,  in 
his  commonwealth,  women  are  slaves,  or  they  are  gov- 
ernors, or  they  work,  or  they  go  to  war  the  same  as  men. 
Throughout  this  scheme  of  society  there  appears  one 
dominant  purpose:  to  prevent  or  to  destroy  the  inequal- 
ities and  the  differences,  even  the  distinctions,  among  its 
members.  For  this  reason,  education  is  universal  and 
compulsory.  It  consists  principally  in  mathematics  and 
gymnastics,  in  which  Plato  imagines  training,  which  all 
can  receive,  and  not  special  talents  or  genius,  which  but 
few  have,  to  be  the  chief  desideratum.  All  expression 
of  that  rare  sort  that  comes  alone  from  genius,  is  dis- 
couraged as  interrupting  the  unity  and  harmony  of  so- 
cial life  considered  ideal.  Probably  he  himself  has  given 
us  a  more  illuminating  description  of  this  idea  than  have 
any  among  his  commentators.  He  says  (Laws,  Bk.  v)  : 
"  Whether  there  ever  will  be  that  communion  of  women 
and  children  and  property  in  which  the  private  and  in- 
dividual is  altogether  banished  from  life  and  things  which 
are  by  nature  private,  such  as  eyes  and  ears  and  hands, 
become  common,  and  all  men  express  praise  and  blame 
and  feel  joy  and  sorrow  on  the  same  occasions, —  whether 
this  is  possible  or  not,  no  man  acting  upon  any  other 
principle  will  ever  constitute  a  State  more  exalted  in 


138  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

virtue  or  better  or  truer  than  this."  This  passage  fairly 
epitomises  Book  IV  of  the  Republic,  in  which  Plato, 
with  much  circumlocution,  affirms  that  society  is  an  or- 
ganism instead  of  an  organization,  bearing  analogy  to 
the  human  organism,  and  as  such  capable  of  being  devel- 
oped and  controlled  as  a  single  person.  It  is  upon  this 
theory,  perhaps  most  fully  stated  in  the  Republic,  but 
also  suggested  in  other  of  his  works  (Crito,  Phaedo, 
and  Protagoras),  that  the  charge  of  pantheism  against 
Plato  largely  rests.  It  is  probable  that  he  conceived  of 
the  immortality  of  the  soul  only  in  the  sense  of  its  being 
a  part  of  the  Universal  Man. 

The  theory  that  society  is  an  organism  plays  a  large 
part  in  Socialist  literature.  It  is  used  to  support  the 
imaginative  assumption,  advanced  as  history,  that  the 
original  state  of  society  was  communal,  that  in  the  dim, 
unwritten  past,  which  is  referred  to  by  Bax  as  the  "  So- 
ciety of  Kinship,"  the  members  of  the  social  body  were 
not  conscious  of  individual  existence,  but  acted  much  as 
the  cells  of  the  human  body  act,  unconsciously  and  un- 
erringly responding  to  the  needs  of  the  composite  be- 
ing.1 It  is  used  also  to  shadow  forth  a  vague  outline 
of  the  state  of  society  as  it  would  be  in  Socialisdom, 
when  the  public  mind  would  be  an  all-compelling  force 
that  the  stoutest  resolution  of  the  individual  could  not 
resist.2 

It  should  be  stated,  however,  that  Plato  admitted  the 
impracticability  of  his  ideal  commonwealth  until  man- 
kind had  been  literally  regenerated.3  In  fact,  it  has 

1  Ethics  of  Socialism,  Bax,  9  sqq. 

2  Ethics  and  the  Materialistic  Conception  of  History,  188. 

3  Cf.  Republic,  Book  IX  and  Laws,  Book  V. 


THE  IDEA  139 

been  suggested  more  than  once  that  the  Republic  is  in- 
tended to  describe  a  state  of  life  after  death,  and  in 
this  sense  it  may  be  said  to  have  largely  inspired  St. 
Augustine's  City  of  God.  It  is  a  striking  fact  that  in 
his  Laws,  written  many  years  after  the  Republic,  Plato 
omits  many  features  included  in  his  former  work. 
Notable  among  these  omissions  is  that  of  the  provision 
for  community  of  women  and  children,  which,  so  far 
from  being  advocated  in  the  crowning  effort  of  his  ma- 
ture years,  is  emphatically  condemned.4  In  his  States- 
man also  are  to  be  observed  marked  indications  that  the 
views  set  out  in  the  Republic  were  not  in  every  partic- 
ular the  result  of  mature  deliberation,  and  certainly  were 
expressed  without  any  hope  of  their  being  put  into  prac- 
tice by  human  beings  as  known  to  Plato. 

It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  Aristotle's  views  5  pre- 
sent a  contrast  to  those  of  Plato  that  is  more  seeming 
than  real.  Plato  appears  to  us  as  a  dreamer;  Aristotle 
as  one  having  a  grasp  of  practical  affairs.  Both  men 
were  philosophers  of  the  rarest  type,  but  one  was  pre- 
eminently the  artist  and  the  other  pre-eminently  the 
statesman.  Plato  thought  of  man  and  his  surroundings 
as  he  conceived  they  ought  to  be;  Aristotle,  as  he  ob- 
served them  actually  to  be.  Hence,  in  the  writings  of 
these  two  great  thinkers  who  have  left  their  impress  upon 
the  entire  field  of  thought,  there  is  a  marked  divergence 
of  expression, —  the  same  that  is  to  be  noted  in  every 
period  as  existing  between  the  radical  and  the  conserva- 
tive, the  revolutionist  and  the  reformer. 

Aristotle  may  be  taken  as  the  prototype  of  reformers. 

*  Laws,  Bk.  VII. 
6  Politics,  ii,  iii. 


i4o  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

He  considered  governments  as  they  were ;  reviewed  their 
history,  analysed  their  constitutions,  studied  their  laws. 
He  considered  men  as  they  were ;  studied  their  past,  pres- 
ent, local,  and  general,  individual  and  social  habits,  cus- 
toms, morals,  aspirations,  predilections,  and  propensi- 
ties. He  was  perhaps  the  most  critical  and  the  most  pro- 
found student  of  men  and  society  who  ever  wrote.  It  is 
peculiarly  striking  that  he  did  not  propose  a  new  society. 
He  pointed  out  many  defects  in  the  constitutions  of 
States  and  many  shortcomings  in  the  characters  of  men ; 
he  was  unsparing  in  his  reproaches  and  condemnations. 
But  he  did  not  propose  to  destroy  existing  society  be- 
cause of  the  weaknesses  or  the  evils  attendant  on  its  struc- 
ture or  its  membership.  His  suggested  method  of  cor- 
recting these  things  was  to  correct  them  and  not  to 
imagine  a  society  where  they  would  not  exist  in  greater 
or  lesser  degree. 

Plato,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  prototype  of  radicals. 
His  writings  evince  a  limited  knowledge  of  both  men 
and  governments.  He  dealt  chiefly  with  abstractions  and 
perhaps  is  the  greatest  among  dialecticians.  He  was  just 
the  sort  of  philosopher  to  propose  an  out  and  out  new 
society.  But  Plato  was  not  a  mere  dreamer.  He  was 
an  idealist,  but  he  was  a  thinker.  As  a  philosopher  he 
ranks  with  Aristotle,  though  as  a  student  he  is  much  the 
lesser  of  the  two.  His  mental  grasp  of  those  faint  out- 
lines of  the  Ideal  that  eluded  other  minds,  was  strong 
and  sure  and  he  delighted  himself  and  others  in  his  mas- 
tery of  them.  Plain,  every-day  truths  seemed  to  hold  no 
pleasure  for  him.  Others  might  concern  themselves  with 
the  commonplace,  but  his  business  was  to  rise  above  all 
ordinary  planes  and  teach  the  truths  that  obtained  in 


THE  IDEA  141 

the  region  of  the  gods.  He  sought  the  truth,  and  was  not 
in  the  least  concerned  as  to  whether  that  truth  was  ap- 
plicable to  human  life  or  some  other  higher  than  human, 
just  so  it  was  true.  But  having  no  knowledge,  or  at 
least  no  definite  knowledge,  of  any  life  higher  than  hu- 
man life,  he  quite  naturally  tried  to  apply  the  truths  he 
conceived  to  the  life  he  knew.  He  failed  in  this,  and 
he  realized  it,  but  he  did  not  clearly  realize  why  he 
failed.  He  conceived  certain  universal  truths  as  unde- 
niable and  that  they  were  not  possible  of  application  was 
unthinkable.  But  he  could  not  apply  them  in  the  world 
he  knew  or  to  the  beings  he  knew.  They  would  not  fit. 
Still,  he  knew  those  truths  were  true.  His  reason  taught 
him  that  where  private  property  existed,  there  would  not 
be  universal  and  perfect  justice,  that  where  "  there  was 
marriage  and  giving  in  marriage,"  there  would  not  be 
universal  and  perfect  love,  that  where  there  were  differ- 
ent orders  in  society  not  based  on  established  and  recog- 
nized merit,  there  would  not  be  universal  and  perfect 
peace.  But  what  was  he  to  do  with  these  truths?  Men 
had  to  live,  and  differing  from  mere  animals,  they  strove 
to  better  their  conditions  of  living.  This  was  their  deep- 
est instinct.  The  next  deepest  was  to  reproduce  their 
kind.  And  it  was  undeniable  that  they  would  take  ad- 
vantage of  one  another  to  indulge  these  natural  impulses. 
Hence,  there  was  need  of  property,  of  family,  and  of  gov- 
ernment, and  these  institutions  precluded  the  possibility 
of  universal  and  perfect  justice,  love,  and  peace. 

Plato  saw  all  this  clearly.  He  tried  very  sincerely  to 
reconcile  this  apparent  conflict  between  truth  and  life. 
But  what  he  could  not  clearly  see  was  the  certainty  of 
a  future  life,  where  man  would  live  without  effort  and 


142  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

perfectly  happy  forever,  and  there  would  be  no  neces- 
sity for  the  instincts  of  self-preservation  or  reproduc- 
tion and  none  for  property,  family  or  State  to  prevent 
their  abusive  indulgence.  Considering  that  he  wrote 
some  four  centuries  before  the  perfect  revelation  of  the 
"  Word  made  flesh,"  and  when  the  hope  of  "  the  Resur- 
rection and  the  Life  "  was  yet  deeply  veiled  in  prophecy, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  Plato's  conception  of  a  future  life 
was  vague  and  uncertain,  and  that,  confusing  the  natural 
and  the  supernatural,  he  vainly  strove  to  fashion  a  com- 
monwealth that  would  make  a  heaven  of  earth.  With 
the  light  of  revealed  truth  thrown  upon  his  teachings,  it 
is  not  difficult  for  one  of  far  lesser  attainments  than 
Plato  to  detect  the  false  ideal  from  the  true,  to  determine 
that  which  is  of  possible  accomplishment  in  this  life  and 
that  which  can  be  realized  only  in  the  life  to  come. 

II.    UTOPIAN 

It  was  nearly  twenty  centuries  from  the  time  of  Plato 
until  Sir  Thomas  More  wrote  his  Utopia.  In  the  mean- 
time the  map  of  the  civilized  world  had  been  variously 
changed.  The  great  cities  of  the  East  had  gone  to  ruin ; 
the  great  empires  of  the  West  had  decayed;  the  New 
World  had  been  discovered.  In  the  meantime,  too, 
Christianity  had  arisen  and  spread  over  the  world;  Mo- 
hammedanism had  become  a  power;  the  Crusades  were 
finished  and  the  Renaissance  had  begun;  Democracy,  as 
yet  itself  unknown,  had  given  birth  to  the  city-republics 
of  southern  Europe ;  Feudalism  had  lost  its  place  in  civ- 
ilization. But  in  all  this  while  the  teachings  of  Plato 
had  not  spread.  Cicero  wrote  his  Republic,  Augustine 
his  City  of  God,  Dante  his  Monarchy;  but  these  ideals 


THE  IDEA  143 

of  government,  though  they  are  generally  classed  as  imi- 
tations, are  so  far  different  from  Plato's  conception  that 
it  is  doubtful  whether  we  owe  them  to  him  or  to  Aris- 
totle. In  fact,  Cicero  claimed  that  his  Republic  was 
written  in  part  to  preserve  the  ideas  of  a  lost  "  Dia- 
logue" of  Aristotle  (I  am  aware  of  no  other  classical 
writer  who  refers  to  this  work).  How  much  of  Plu- 
tarch's Lycurgus  was  inspired  by  Plato,  and  how 
much  is  truly  historical,  cannot  be  said  with  assurance, 
but  there  is  such  a  marked  resemblance  between  the  ideal 
commonwealth  imagined  by  the  philosopher  and  the  so- 
cial life  of  the  Spartans  described  by  the  historian,  that 
one  cannot  escape  the  conviction  that  they  are  related  in 
their  conception. 

But  whatever  the  source  of  inspiration  for  the  writers 
after  Plato  and  before  More,  there  can  be  no  mistaking 
the  latter's  indebtedness  to  the  Athenian  for  the  main 
outlines  of  Utopia.  It  supposes  a  like  community  of 
property  and  of  children,  though  it  is  noteworthy  that 
the  community  of  women  advocated  by  the  pagan  philos- 
opher in  his  earlier  writings  is  lacking  in  the  scheme  of 
the  Christian.  It  divides  the  citizens  of  Utopia  into 
three  classes,  which  correspond  to  Plato's  governors, 
workers,  and  slaves.  It  aims  at  the  same  common  level 
among  men  that  was  thought  to  be  ideal  by  Plato :  "  For 
so  wise  a  man  could  not  but  foresee  that  the  setting  all 
upon  a  common  level  was  the  only  way  to  make  a  nation 
happy."  x  But  Utopia  is  more  elaborate  in  detail  than 
the  Republic.  The  Utopians  have  their  work,  their  rest, 
their  enjoyments,  both  serious  and  frivolous,  prescribed 
minutely,  in  time,  place,  and  character.  All  citizens  wear 

1  Utopia,  30. 


144  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

the  same  kind  of  clothes,  there  being  no  difference  in 
color,  style  or  material ;  the  fashion  never  changes ;  each 
citizen  has  but  two  suits  and  these  are  expected  to  wear 
about  five  years.  Money  is  held  in  contempt.  Gold  and 
silver  are  used  to  make  chains  for  criminals  and  slaves, 
and  thus  their  use  becomes  degrading.  There  are 
scarcely  any  laws  in  Utopia,  the  magistrates  passing  on 
all  matters  of  order  and  justice  as  they  arise,  making  the 
law  to  fit  the  occasion  and  the  offender.2 

As  to  their  trade :  each  city  is  divided  in  quarters  and 
in  the  center  of  each  is  a  market,  to  which  each  pater 
familias  goes  and  "  takes  whatever  he  or  his  family  may 
need,  without  paying  anything  for  it  or  leaving  anything 
in  exchange."  3  However,  all  citizens  take  their  meals 
in  common,  in  great  halls,  arranged  for  thirty  families 
each.  Even  the  manner  in  which  they  sit  at  table  is 
prescribed.  In  fact,  practically  every  detail  of  life  is 
fixed  for  the  Utopians,  including  the  manner  in  which 
courtship  is  conducted.  Yet  it  is  said :  "  They  are  the 
happiest  people  in  the  world,  and  their  commonwealth  I 
not  only  think  the  best  in  the  world  but  the  only  one 
that  truly  deserves  the  name." 4  Later,  however,  the 
writer  radically  modifies  this  view.  At  the  same  time  he 
says  that  as  a  whole  or  substantially,  the  society  he  pic- 
tures is  impracticable  and  hopeless.5 

The  marked  difference  between  Plato  and  More  is  in 
their  way  of  presenting  their  ideals  rather  than  in  the 
ideals  themselves.  Plato  supports  his  with  a  strong  ar- 

2  Utopia,  39-44. 

3  Ib.,  46. 


THE  IDEA  145 

gument;  More  is  content  with  mere  statements.  One  is 
a  philosopher,  the  other  a  romancer.  When  it  is  ob- 
jected to  More's  ideal  "  that  men  cannot  live  conveniently 
where  all  things  are  common ;  men  will  be  slothful  be- 
cause there  is  no  gain  to  excite  them ;  and  lawless  because 
authority  will  not  be  respected  among  those  that  are  in 
all  things  equal  to  one  another,"  More  has  Raphael  to 
reply :  "  I  do  not  wonder  that  it  appears  so  to  you,  but 
if  you  had  been  in  Utopia  with  me,  you  would  then  con- 
fess that  you  had  never  seen  a  people  so  well  constituted 
as  they."  Now,  Plato  would  have  worked  out  a  feasible 
answer  to  this  objection  or  else  he  would  have  ignored 
it  altogether.  More  is  evidently  unable  to  meet  the  ob- 
jection squarely  (and  indeed,  who  is  able  to  meet  it?), 
so  his  narrator  assumes  an  air  of  superior  understand- 
ing, shows  a  condescending  pity  for  the  inexperience  of 
the  objector,  and  blithely  passes  on.  In  this  respect, 
More  is  a  worthy  exemplar  of  Socialists,  who  are  con- 
tent to  make  assertions  without  having  proof,  authority 
or  a  reasonable  argument  to  advance  in  support  of  them, 
who  decry  a  questioner  as  one  "  having  no  part  in  the 
intellectual  life  "  and  who  count  it  "  a  mark  of  ignorance 
to  ask  for  details." 

Many  other  passages  from  More  have  a  tone  and 
evince  a  spirit  familiar  in  the  circles  where  Socialists 
are  heard  to  cry  out  with  a  loud  voice  against  the  un- 
equal distribution  of  goods  in  society  and  the  imagined 
conspiracy  on  the  part  of  the  rich  to  keep  the  poor  in 
poverty.  "  What  justice  is  there,"  he  asks  in  the  last 
paragraph  of  Utopia,  "  where  a  goldsmith,  a  banker, 
or  any  other  man  who  either  does  nothing  at  all  or 
is  employed  in  things  that  are  of  no  use  to  the  public, 


146  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

lives  in  great  luxury  and  splendor  upon  what  is  so  ill- 
acquired,  while  a  mean  man,  a  carter,  a  smith  or  a 
ploughman,  who  works  harder  even  than  the  beasts  them- 
selves and  is  employed  in  labor  so  necessary  that  no  com- 
monwealth could  hold  out  a  year  without  them, —  can 
only  earn  so  poor  a  livelihood  and  must  lead  so  miserable 
a  life  that  the  condition  of  the  beasts  is  much  better 
than  theirs  ? "  And  in  another  place,  he  says :  "  I  can 
have  no  other  notion  of  all  the  other  governments  that 
I  see  or  know,  than  that  they  are  a  conspiracy  of  the 
rich  who,  on  pretense  of  managing  the  public,  only  pur- 
sue their  private  ends  and  devise  all  the  ways  and  arts 
they  can  find  out;  first,  that  they  may  without  danger 
preserve  all  that  they  have  so  ill-acquired,  and  then  that 
they  may  engage  the  poor  to  toil  and  labor  for  them  at 
as  low  rates  as  possible."  These  two  paragraphs  sound 
very  like  a  Socialist  harangue,  the  first  suggesting  the 
idea  that  class  divisions  and  all  other  appointments  of 
civilization  are  the  result  of  the  divisions  of  property, 
the  second  being  an  epitome  of  the  theory  of  surplus 
value  formulated  by  Marx,  to  whom,  though  generally 
accredited,  it  was  not  original. 

Second  only  to  More  as  an  exponent  of  the  Utopian 
idea,  is  Campanella,  a  Calabrian  monk,  who  near  the  be- 
ginning of  the  seventh  century  wrote  the  City  of  the 
Sun.  In  one  respect  Campanella  is  an  imitator  of  Plato 
rather  than  of  More.  His  ideal  commonwealth  is  con- 
ceived under  the  form  of  a  city-State,  as  was  Plato's. 
Just  as  the  Athenian  was  influenced  by  the  city  form 
of  government,  which  was  characteristic  of  classic 
Greece,  so  the  Italian  was  influenced  by  the  city-repub- 
lics,—  Venice,  Florence,  Genoa,  Pisa, —  which  flourished 


THE  IDEA  147 

about  him.  But  the  City  of  the  Sun  is  plainly  imitative 
of  More  in  nearly  all  other  respects.  The  same  bold 
assertion,  with  neither  argument  nor  apology,  marks  its 
narrative.  The  same  social  characteristics  are  bespoken 
for  the  members  of  this  imaginary  society  as  are  recited 
by  the  English  visionary, —  they  are  generous,  courteous, 
diligent,  high-minded,  truth-loving,  noble  of  bearing, 
temperate  of  indulgence  and  of  surpassing  knowledge  and 
wisdom  in  all  worthy  things.  All  this  is  affirmed  to  be 
the  consequence  of  the  common  life  of  the  people,  "  who 
are  rich  because  they  want  nothing,  poor  because  they 
possess  nothing;  and  consequently  they  are  not  slaves  to 
circumstances  but  circumstances  serve  them."  Cam- 
panella  allows  only  four  hours  a  day  for  work  (Utopia, 
six)  ;  "  The  remaining  hours  are  spent  joyously  in  learn- 
ing, debating,  reading,  reciting,  writing,  walking,  in  ex- 
ercising the  mind  and  body,  and  with  play."  Like  More, 
Campanella  indulges  a  wealth  of  detail  as  to  the  man- 
ner of  life  and  government  in  his  ideal  city,  leaving 
scarcely  anything  to  be  supplied  by  way  of  narrative 
and  assertion.  He  differs  from  More,  however,  in  not 
evading,  but  frankly  admitting  that  he  cannot  meet,  cer- 
tain objections.  Once,  after  describing  the  traits  of  com- 
munal life  as  he  imagines  it,  he  has  the  interlocutor  to 
say :  "  Under  such  circumstances  no  one  will  be  willing 
to  labor,  but  will  expect  others  to  work,  on  the  fruits  of 
whose  labors  he  can  live,  as  Aristotle  argues  against 
Plato."  In  reply  to  this  the  narrator  says :  "  I  do  not 
know  how  to  deal  with  that  argument."  It  may  be  said 
in  passing  that  this  is  about  as  good  an  answer  as  was 
ever  yet  made  to  Aristotle's  argument. 

Bacon  was  a  contemporary  of  Campanella.     His  New 


148  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Atlantis  is  classed  among  the  Utopias  of  literature  and 
in  a  few  particulars  is  imitative  of  More's,  but  it  seems 
rather  intended  to  picture  in  detail  the  remarkable  civili- 
zation of  the  "  Atlantis  "  glimpsed  by  Homer  and  out- 
lined by  Plato.  Bacon  conceives  a  State  where  science 
has  reached  a  dream-like  perfection, —  where  there  are 
great  towers,  miles  high,  from  which  the  winds  and  the 
rains  are  controlled, —  great  lakes  and  fountains  and 
chambers  and  gardens,  in  which  the  vigor  of  youth  is 
perpetually  renewed, —  great  furnaces  that  produce  light 
and  heat  so  that  there  is  no  diversity  of  day  and  night, 
or  of  seasons, —  sound  houses,  in  which  are  produced 
tones  and  harmonies  of  a  delicacy  and  beauty  not  else- 
where known, —  perfume  houses,  in  which  are  multiplied 
enchanting  strange  smells  and  divers  imitations  of  tastes 
so  that  they  will  astonish  any  man, —  engine  houses, 
where  are  prepared  instruments  for  all  sorts  of  motions, 
swifter  motions  than  are  elsewhere  known,  stronger  and 
more  violent,  strange  for  equality,  fineness  and  subtilty, 
some  perpetual  motions, — "  These  are  among  the  riches 
of  Salomon's  House."  The  mode  of  life  among  the  New 
Atlanteans  is  not  described  in  detail,  but  enough  is  said 
for  us  to  know  that  they  enjoy  everything  in  common 
except  their  wives,  Bacon  having  preserved  the  sanctity 
of  family  life  as  did  More. 

The  writings  of  More,  Campanella,  and  Bacon  bear  a 
striking  similarity  to  each  other  in  the  brevity,  simplic- 
ity and  directness  of  their  narrative.  Harrington,  writ- 
ing some  thirty  years  later  than  Bacon,  presents  us  a 
work  that  is  quite  different.  His  Oceana  is  both  copious 
and  prolix.  It  is  at  once  an  argument,  a  criticism,  a 
philosophical  treatise,  a  political  tract  and  a  romance. 


THE  IDEA  149 

It  is  both  Utopian  and  Platonic,  the  former  in  its  con- 
ception, the  latter  in  its  content.  It  is  distinguished  by 
neither  the  genius  with  which  More  was  gifted,  nor  the 
art  of  which  Plato  was  consummate  master,  but  it  is  a 
work  of  prodigious  and  painstaking  labor  and  not  lack- 
ing in  graceful  finish.  The  most  delightful  thing  in  Har- 
rington's ideal  State  is  the  way  in  which  Nature  has 
smiled  upon  it.  He  describes  it  in  the  language  of  Pliny, 
in  a  sort  of  ecstasy :  "  O  most  blessed  and  fortunate  of 
all  countries,  Oceana !  how  deservedly  has  nature  with 
the  bounties  of  heaven  and  earth  endued  thee!  Thy 
ever  fruitful  womb  not  closed  with  ice  nor  dissolved  by 
the  raging  sun;  where  Ceres  and  Bacchus  are  perpetual 
twins :  thy  woods  are  not  the  harbor  of  devouring  beasts, 
nor  thy  continual  verdure  the  ambush  of  serpents,  but 
the  food  of  innumerable  herds  and  flocks  presenting  thee 
with  distended  dugs  of  golden  fleeces."  The  people  of 
this  fair  land  "  live  in  convenient  plenty,  and  no  servile 
condition ;  keep  the  plough  in  the  hands  of  the  owners 
and  have  not  hirelings."  The  secret  of  their  happiness 
lies  in  their  plan  of  dividing  the  land,  which  is  not  held 
in  common,  nor  yet  free,  but  on  conditional  tenure, 
not  unlike  that  which  Virgil  mentions  in  the  Georgics  as 
obtaining  among  some  ancient  Roman  cities. 

Harrington  condemns  the  principle  of  government  held 
by  Aristotle  (Politics), —  that  the  best  governed  society 
is  that  governed  by  the  best  laws ;  also,  that  of  Machia- 
velli  (The  Prince), —  that  it  is  that  governed  by  the 
best  men;  also,  that  of  Hobbes  (Leviathan}, —  that  it  is 
that  governed  by  the  greatest  majority.  He  maintains 
that  the  secret  of  the  best  government  lies  in  the  balance 
of  property,  especially  landed  property.  He  may  be  said 


150  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

to  have  vaguely  suggested  Wallace's  scheme  of  "  Land 
Nationalization "  and  George's  "  Single  Tax "  theory, 
which  attracted  such  wide  attention  in  England  and 
America  during  the  last  century.  This  was  a  departure 
from  the  strictly  communal  idea  held  by  his  Utopian 
predecessors  and  is  perhaps  the  first  hint  of  a  socialistic 
as  distinguished  from  a  communistic  society.  But  it  was 
only  a  hint  and  but  feebly  foreshadows  the  Socialist  Idea 
as  suggested  by  Morelly,  developed  by  Mably,  constructed 
into  a  system  by  Saint-Simon  and  Fourier,  and  finally 
reduced  to  a  "  science  "  by  Marx  and  Engels. 

The  Socialist  Idea,  as  an  ideal,  does  not  involve  com- 
munal life,  nor  even  community  of  goods.  In  fact,  it  is 
not  compatible  with  community  of  goods  in  general.  It 
requires  that  the  producer  receive  all  that  he  produces, 
which  could  not  be  where  there  is  community  of  goods. 
It  is  rooted  in  the  theory  of  "  surplus-value  "  commonly 
accredited  to  Marx,  who  used  this  phrase  to  describe  the 
part  of  the  product  that  goes  to  non-producers  in  so- 
ciety. Certain  passages  of  Utopia  are  suggestive  of  this 
theory,  but  none  of  its  provisions  are  aimed  to  give  the 
producer  the  whole  product.  Such  an  aim  could  not  be 
reconciled  with  the  ideal  spirit  in  which  Utopia  was  con- 
ceived. This  ideal  called  for  the  same  high  degree  of 
happiness  for  all  persons,  an  impossible  thing  where  the 
producers,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  claim  the  whole 
product  of  society.  Hence,  the  suggestions  of  Harring- 
ton to  the  effect  that  not  all  property,  but  only  landed 
property  be  held  in  common,  is  a  distinctive  departure 
from  the  Utopian  ideal.  Morelly  enlarged  upon  this 
suggestion ;  first,  as  a  poet,  in  his  heroic  Basiliade;  but 
later  as  a  critic,  in  his  dogmatic  Code  de  la  Nature. 


THE  IDEA  151 

His  fellow-countrymen,  Mably,  Boissel,  Babeuf,  Blanc, 
Cabet,  Saint-Simon,  Fourier,  continued  to  enlarge  upon 
it,  until  about  the  middle  of  the  following  century,  when 
Rodbertus,  Marx,  and  Engels  gave  it  its  "  scientific  "  as- 
pect. At  the  same  time,  in  England,  Godwin,  Hall, 
Thompson,  Owen,  not  to  mention  the  Ricardian  school 
which  denounced  competition,  were  constructing  the  fun- 
damentals of  this  idea  into  a  system  not  unlike  that  of 
Morelly  and  his  disciples.  Thompson,  in  particular,  in 
his  Inquiry  into  the  Principles  of  the  Distribution  of 
Wealth,  outlined  the  several  economic  theories  that  to- 
gether with  Morelly's  teachings  formed  the  basis  upon 
which  the  accredited  founders  of  Scientific  Socialism 
built  their  system,  the  central  idea  of  which  is  the  curious 
contradiction  of  communism  and  property, —  communism 
in  the  means  for  production,  property  in  the  product  (the 
contradiction  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  means  for  pro- 
duction usually  themselves  are  products). 

III.     "  SCIENTIFIC  " 

It  is  a  far  cry  from  Utopianism  to  Scientific  Social- 
ism, so-called.  Between  More  and  his  imitators,  and 
Marx  and  his  followers,  there  is  so  much  difference,  both 
substantive  and  formal,  that  but  for  the  impression 
usually  sought  to  be  made  by  the  latter  that  their  teach- 
ings are  the  scientific  development  of  the  ideals  of  the 
former,  it  would  never  occur  to  any  one  to  connect  them 
in  a  way  that  suggests  historical  sequence.  And  the  con- 
nection here  made  would  be  misleading  if  some  of  the 
particulars  making  up  this  difference  were  not  noted. 

More  did  not  entertain  a  hope  that  his  ideals  would 
ever  be  realized  in  human  society;  they  were  frankly 


152  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

visionary  and  intended  as  a  criticism  of  existing  society 
rather  than  as  proposals  for  a  new  order.  But  Marx 
confidently  expected  the  realization  of  his  schemes  and 
proposed  them  as  practical  aims  to  be  definitely  accom- 
plished; he  even  claimed  that  their  accomplishment  is 
absolutely  inevitable.  More  was  deeply  religions.  In 
his  ideal  commonwealth,  while  there  is  the  utmost  toler- 
ance shown  for  the  beliefs  of  all  who  believe  in  God, 
there  is  no  room  for  the  unbeliever,  and  whoever  denies 
or  doubts  God  is  banished  from  the  realm.  Marx  hated 
religion  in  all  its  forms.  God  he  called  a  "  fetich,"  and 
in  his  conception  of  the  universe  "  there  is  absolutely  no 
room  for  a  Supreme  Being;  —  even  to  talk  of  one  is  an 
insult  to  a  man  of  intelligence."  More's  ideal  of  social 
life  involves  the  regulation  and  control  of  individual  life 
in  practically  all  of  its  details.  Utopians  engage  in  like 
pursuits  and  pleasures,  wear  a  common  dress,  eat  at  a 
public  table,  have  common  work  and  common  hours  for 
work,  are  reared  in  common  nurseries,  taught  in  com- 
mon schools.  In  fine,  with  the  exception  of  not  having 
wives  in  common,  they  live  under  a  most  radical  com- 
munist regime.  All  of  this  was  intolerable  to  Marx.  It 
bespeaks  a  fettering  of  individual  freedom  wholly  for- 
eign to  his  proposals,  which  would  extend  to  all  persons 
alike  not  only  the  fullest  liberty,  but  also  the  greatest 
license.  The  only  regulations  of  social  life  that  Marx 
proposes  are  in  the  way  of  administering  business  af- 
fairs. He  would  abrogate  all  laws  except  the  law  that 
each  must  work,  but  that  would  apply  for  only  a  few 
hours  a  day,  and  these  would  be  gradually  reduced  to  a 
few  minutes,  and  finally,  when  the  work  of  the  world  is 
done  "  by  the  touch  of  a  button,"  even  work  would  be 


THE  IDEA  153 

dispensed  with  and  men  would  be  as  free  as  animals  in 
a  herd.  Even  the  marriage  relation,  which  Marx  pre- 
tended to  regard  as  an  impediment  and  a  challenge  to 
right  living,  would  no  longer  exist  to  restrain  the  free 
exercise  of  men's  animal  desires. 

Like  More,  Marx  was  gifted  with  imaginative  genius. 
He  indulged  this  faculty,  however,  to  construct  a  sys- 
tem of  philosophy  and  not  a  society,  although  his  system 
comprehends  nearly  all  phases  of  social  thought  and  ac- 
tivity. Marx  had  read  widely.  He  wrote  copiously. 
He  left  a  characteristic  if  not  an  original  impress  upon 
varied  and  numerous  subjects.  As  a  "  discoverer "  of 
principles,  he  has  been  accorded  far  too  great  credit  by 
his  admiring  followers.  He  drew  his  theory  of  value 
from  Ricardo's  Principles,  that  of  surplus-value  from 
Godwin's  Political  Justice,  that  of  the  class-struggle  from 
Thompson's  Inquiry.  Hegel  preceded  him  as  a  dialec- 
tician, Feuerbach  as  a  materialist,  Lamarck  as  an  evo- 
lutionist, Helvetius  as  a  determinist. 

But  Marx,  aided  by  his  friend,  Engels,  gathered  their 
various  views  together  and  worked  them  into  a  curi- 
ous sort  of  unity.  He  incorporated  the  Right  to  Sub- 
sistence with  them.  This  was  a  right  advocated  by  all 
of  the  Utopians.  It  had  also  been  frequently  advanced, 
as  it  is  nowadays,  by  practical  statesmen  as  a  reform 
measure  highly  proper  to  be  introduced  into  existing  so- 
ciety, and  the  Elizabethan  Poor  Laws,  necessitated 
through  the  wholesale  destruction,  by  Henry  VIII,  of 
monastic  institutions,  which  were  the  unfailing  succor  of 
the  poor,  went  a  long  way  toward  establishing  this  right. 
Marx  also  incorporated  into  his  system  the  Right  to 
Labor.  Before  the  Reformation  had  weakened  the  re- 


154  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

ligious  bond  that  was  their  chief  strength,  the  Craft 
Guilds,  which  in  the  Middle  Ages  abounded  throughout 
Europe,  had  secured  this  right;  but  with  the  decline  of 
the  Guilds  and  the  consequent  demoralization  of  labor 
as  a  social  force,  the  demand  for  the  Right  to  Labor 
sprang  up  in  every  country  where  the  evil  of  unemploy- 
ment appeared.  It  was  among  the  principal  demands  of 
the  French  Revolution  and  resulted  in  the  Right  being 
set  out  in  the  French  Code  of  1793,  and  finally  in  the 
establishment,  in  1848,  of  the  national  work-shops  which, 
because  of  their  ill-success,  are  so  conspicuous  in  the 
industrial  history  of  France.  The  Right  to  the  Whole 
Produce  of  Labor,  first  advocated  by  Godwin  in  con- 
nection with  his  exposition  of  the  source  of  profit,  which 
suggested  to  Marx  the  surplus-value  theory,  was  also 
included  in  the  conglomerate  system  accredited  to  Marx 
and  Engels. 

For  his  political  theories,  Marx  drew  variously  from 
monarchists  like  Machiavelli,  democrats  like  Rousseau, 
and  anarchists  like  Proudhon.  He  combined  the  ex- 
treme Individualism  of  which  Herbert  Spencer  is  the 
classical  exponent  with  the  other  extreme  reached  by  that 
school  of  German  philosophers  who  press  the  analogy 
suggested  by  Plato  to  its  final  conclusion  and  teach  that 
society  is  an  organism  and  its  individual  members  are 
only  cell-like  parts  that  have  neither  consciousness  nor 
will,  except  as  these  are  derived  from  the  whole.  His 
theory  of  historical  interpretation  is  an  exaggerated  de- 
velopment of  Montesquieu's  attempt  to  explain  social 
progress  in  terms  of  physical  geography  and  material  en- 
vironment. His  cosmic  theory  was  drawn  from  D'Hol- 
bach,  who  probably  derived  it  from  Democritos,  an  ob- 


THE  IDEA  155 

scure  ancient.  Even  his  sweeping  attack  upon  God  and 
religion  was  not  new.  Meslier,  Volney,  and  Voltaire,  not 
to  mention  others  among  the  Encyclopedists  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  were  distinguished  for  their  hatred 
of  all  things  sacred,  but  they  are  fairly  outdone  by  Marx 
in  the  general  sweep  and  bitterness  of  his  assault. 

In  fine,  while  it  would  be  tedious  to  mention  his 
many  predecessors  in  thought,  Marx  is  without  title  of 
originality  for  any  of  his  fundamental  theories.  But 
it  is  noteworthy  that  Marx  is  held  out  as  the  "  discov- 
erer "  of  his  theories.  Upon  this  ground  a  rather 
amusing  dispute  occurred  between  Marx  and  Rodbertus. 
Rodbertus  claimed  to  be  the  discoverer  of  the  theory  of 
surplus-value  and  openly  charged  Marx  with  having 
pirated  the  idea  from  him,  which,  of  course,  Marx  denied. 
"  The  truth  is,"  says  Mengel  in  his  scholarly  and  critical 
work  on  The  Right  to  the  Whole  Produce  of  Labor, "  that 
both  Rodbertus  and  Marx  are  indebted  to  older  Social- 
ists for  their  views.  Their  dispute  as  to  priority,  which 
is  not  without  its  comic  element,  could  never  have  arisen, 
had  not  both  with  equal  care  refrained  from  confiding 
the  sources  of  their  views  to  the  public." 

The  fact  that  Marx  and  Engels  are  generally  regarded 
by  Socialists  as  the  founders  of  Scientific  Socialism 
while  those  from  whom  they  drew  their  teachings  are 
almost  forgotten,  is  accounted  for  by  the  difference  in 
their  methods  of  propaganda.  The  older  Socialists  ap- 
pealed to  the  cultured  and  well-to-do  classes.  It  is  said 
that  Fourier,  at  a  certain  hour  each  day  for  the  last  ten 
years  of  his  life,  went  to  his  house  expressly  to  meet 
some  millionaire  whom  he  expected  to  come  forward  for 
the  purpose  of  establishing  a  "  Phalanstery."  Saint- 


156  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Simon  was  of  the  nobility  and  appealed  to  that  class  in 
his  writings.  Owen  directed  his  appeals  to  the  great 
manufacturers  and  bankers  and  was  not  reluctant  to  call 
upon  the  royalty  of  Europe  to  assist  in  the  industrial 
reforms  he  proposed.  Cabet  gathered  his  intrepid  band 
of  Icarians  from  among  the  educated  classes  of  the  Con- 
tinent. Morelly  in  France  and  Thompson  in  England 
addressed  their  writings  to  the  most  enlightened,  not  to 
say  the  most  affluent,  classes  of  their  time.  The  classes 
to  which  these  older  Socialists  appealed  did  not  respond. 
They  were  not  greatly  impressed  with  the  doctrines  and 
teachings  set  out.  As  a  consequence,  except  as  to  those 
whose  names  are  connected  with  some  experimental 
movement  that  is  conspicuous  in  Socialist  history  for  its 
disastrous  results,  these  older  Socialist  writers  have  fallen 
into  oblivion. 

Marx  and  Engels  adopted  a  different  tactic.  They  ap- 
pealed to  the  propertyless  classes  of  society,  which  were 
almost  wholly  without  education  and  practically  incapable 
of  thinking  with  continuity  and  precision  or  without 
prejudice  and  passion.  Strange  to  say,  the  sanction  of 
their  teachings  by  these  classes  was  by  Marx  and  Engels 
deemed  to  be  a  true,  if  not  an  infallible,  test  of  their 
vitality  and  verity.  In  consequence,  these  writers  have 
become  more  conspicuous  with  the  growth  of  the  prole- 
tarian agitation  and  are  to-day  recognized  as  the  fore- 
most of  all  Socialist  authorities ;  their  writings  are  called 
"the  classics  of  Socialist  literature,"  and  it  is  claimed 
that  they  have  been  translated  into  nearly  every  civilized 
tongue.  The  Communist  Manifesto  and  Capital  are  re- 
spectively referred  to  by  Socialists  as  the  Magna  Charta 
and  the  Bible  of  the  working  classes,  and  there  are  those 


THE  IDEA  157 

among  his  ardent  disciples  who  laud  Marx  as  a  mod- 
ern Christ !  All  of  which  would  greatly  mystify  one  who 
failed  to  consider  the  well-directed  play  for  popular 
favor  that  Marx  and  Engels  so  cleverly  injected  into 
their  teaching. 

The  adoption  of  this  tactic  brought  a  new  element  into 
the  Socialist  Idea;  namely,  Revolution.  Rather,  it  gave 
to  the  revolutionary  element  already  existing  a  new 
meaning.  The  idea  of  the  older  Socialists,  and  of  Uto- 
pians, even  of  Plato,  was  revolutionary  in  as  far  as  it 
contemplated  a  new  order  of  society.  But  the  new 
order  contemplated  by  them  was  to  be  established 
through  the  consent  of  those  who  were  to  live  by  it,  just 
as  it  is  said  to  have  been  done  in  the  case  of  the  com- 
monwealth of  Lycurgus.  The  revolutionary  character  of 
Scientific  Socialism  is  far  different;  it  requires  the  tri- 
umph of  the  working  class  over  the  capitalist  class;  it 
means  stripping  the  rich  of  their  possessions  by  force. 
The  classes  to  which  Marx  and  Engels  appealed  were 
at  once  propertyless,  uneducated,  and  lacking  in  political 
power,  prerogative,  and  expedient.  The  only  weapon 
within  the  reach  of  those  classes  was  force.  They  had 
sufficient  numbers  to  be  effective  in  a  fight,  provided  all 
would  fight.  Hence,  the  closing  lines  of  the  Manifesto 
call  on  the  workingmen  of  all  countries  to  unite,  and  in 
order  to  stir  them  to  take  this  step,  it  adds  the  desperate 
sentiment :  "You  have  nothing  to  lose  but  your  chains ! 
You  have  the  world  to  gain ! " 

But  the  writings  of  Marx  and  Engels  were  read  by 
others  than  those  to  whom  they  were  directly  addressed, 
and  as  a  consequence,  their  teachings  met  with  sharp 
and  forcible  disapproval  even  from  sympathetic  critics. 


158  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

The  theories  of  value  and  surplus-value,  as  drawn  out 
by  them  to  their  full  meaning,  their  "  Explanation  of 
Financial  Crises,"  their  prophecy  of  the  "  Concentration 
of  Wealth,"  their  cry  of  "  Increasing  Misery  "  and  their 
warning  of  a  "  Final  Catastrophe,"  were  each  so  conclu- 
sively disproved  by  such  men  as  Schaffle,  Ely,  Hyndman, 
Bohm-Bawerk,  and  Bernstein,  to  say  nothing  of  more  re- 
cent writers  like  Mallock,  Cathrein,  Ming,  Ryan, —  that 
Socialists  split  into  two  schools,  distinguished  as  Marxians 
and  Revisionists,  each  of  which  claims  to  represent  Sci- 
entific Socialism. 

Revisionism  dates  from  near  the  close  of  the  last  cen- 
tury, when  the  German  Socialist  Bernstein  published  a 
series  of  articles  attacking  the  fundamentals  of  the 
Marxian  teachings.  This  series  was  later  published  in 
book  form  as  Evolutionary  Socialism.  It  is  directed 
principally  against  the  doctrine  of  economic  determinism 
and  its  companion  doctrine  of  class  antagonism,  but  it 
also  exposes  the  fallacy  of  Marx's  ideas  of  the  concen- 
tration of  industry,  recurrent  crises,  increasing  misery 
and  final  catastrophe.  Time  was  of  great  assistance  to 
the  Revisionists  in  demonstrating  these  fallacies.  For 
the  time  tacitly  fixed  by  the  Marxians  when  the  evils  af- 
flicting society  in  conseqeunce  of  the  capitalist  system 
would  culminate  in  a  universal  crisis  that  would  crum- 
ble the  foundations  of  the  present  order,  was  past  and 
gone  when  the  Revisionists  began  seriously  to  threaten 
the  integrity  of  Socialism  as  conceived  by  Marx  and 
Engels. 

The  tendency  of  the  Socialist  Idea  of  the  present  time 
is  toward  the  Revisionist  teaching.  The  term  scientific 
is  still  employed,  by  both  Marxians  and  Revisionists,  but 


THE  IDEA  159 

the  latter  do  not  use  it  in  its  former  sense,  i.e.,  as  de- 
noting that  the  coming  of  Socialism  is  inevitable.  .  An 
entirely  new  society  is  still  the  aim  of  Socialists,  Marxian 
and  Revisionist,  but  with  the  passing  of  Marx,  Engels, 
Lassalle,  Liebknecht,  Vandervelde,  Bebel,  and  other 
forcible  leaders  whose  revolutionary  agitation  made  them 
conspicuous,  the  old  idea  that  was  called  "  scientific," 
though  still  retained  in  Socialist  propaganda,  has  largely 
given  way  before  that  which  calls  for  another  term,  such 
as  "  practical." 

IV.    PRACTICAL 

As  descriptive  of  a  distinctive  phase  of  their  teach- 
ings, Socialists  do  not  employ  the  term  practical.  They 
prefer  to  regard  Scientific  Socialism  as  practical.  This 
is  true  even  of  such  Socialists  as  Hyndman  and  Wells, 
of  England ;  Guesde  and  Jaures,  of  France ;  Hillquit 
and  Spargo,  of  America,  to  mention  only  these,  who  do 
not  unreservedly  subscribe  to  the  Scientific  Idea.  But 
as  a  matter  of  historical  precision,  some  distinctive  term 
must  be  employed  to  differentiate  the  Socialist  Idea  as 
it  obtained  from  the  middle  of  the  last  century,  or  from 
the  writing  of  the  Communist  Manifesto,  in  1847,  and 
as  it  has  come  to  be  more  and  more  widely  advanced 
since  the  beginning  of  the  present  century.  It  is  only 
for  this  purpose  and  in  this  sense  that  the  term  practical 
is  here  used. 

The  Revisionists  rejected  many  of  the  fundamentals 
of  the  Scientific  Idea.  But  this  was  not  sufficient  to 
meet  the  growing  demands  of  the  last  two  decades,  which 
have  been  rather  for  reform  than  for  revolution.  Bern- 
stein's disciples  only  perceived  that  the  Marxian  ap- 


160  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

praisal  of  industrial  tendencies  was  false,  that  the  growth 
of  small  tradesmen  kept  pace  with  the  growth  of  capi- 
tal, the  increase  of  small  capitalists  with  the  increase  of 
wealth,  the  comforts  of  the  working  classes  with  the 
general  advancement  of  society,  all  of  which  Marx  said 
was  impossible.  But  the  first  Revisionists  did  no  more 
than  reject  the  Marxian  forecasts.  This  emasculated 
Socialism,  however,  and  something  more  was  necessary, 
some  practical  measures  must  be  adopted,  if  the  Social- 
ist movement  was  not  to  stop.  Hence,  arose  that  school 
of  Socialists  known  as  Opportunists,  who,  as  their  name 
implies,  were  ready  to  incorporate  in  their  teaching  any 
measures  calculated  to  keep  their  movement  going,  to 
adopt  any  principle  or  any  policy  that  appeared  "  op- 
portune." 

The  Opportunists,  therefore,  engrafted  on  the  Social- 
ist Idea  several  measures  of  which  the  older  Socialists 
did  not  dream,  and  several  which  they  had  emphatically 
repudiated,  and  several  which  they  had  tolerated  only  as 
temporary  expedients  and  without  any  pretense  of  mak- 
ing them  a  part  of  Socialist  teaching.  Among  the  first 
class  is  the  modification  of  the  strict  communism  orig- 
inally (and  as  a  logical  consequence,  yet)  required  in 
means  for  production,  the  modification  being  to  exclude 
"  small  farmers,  small  traders,  artists,  craftsmen,  etc.," 
from  the  general  rule  and  permit  them  to  own  and 
operate  their  property  to  the  exclusion  of  society;  also, 
in  this  class,  are  the  measures  looking  to  the  whole  so- 
ciety's owning  only  what  things  the  whole  society  uses, 
while  smaller  divisions  of  society,  like  States  and  mu- 
nicipalities, would  own  things  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
whole,  and  yet  smaller  divisions  would  own  other  things 


THE  IDEA  161 

to  the  exclusion  of  the  larger,  and  so  forth,  until  the 
small  farmer,  small  trader,  and  their  kind  would  indi- 
vidually own  things  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others. 
Marx  and  Engels  would  certainly  never  recognize  these 
offshoots  of  Socialism.  Among  the  second  class  men- 
tioned are  all  those  measures  looking  to  the  betterment 
of  the  working  classes,  such  as  shorter  hours,  higher 
wages,  exclusion  of  child  labor,  and  restriction  of  fe- 
male labor,  provisions  for  safety  appliances,  and  more 
sanitary  conditions  in  working  places,  even  minimum 
wage  laws,  industrial  insurance,  old-age  pensions,  and  so 
forth.  All  such  measures  were  consistently  rejected  by 
the  older  Socialists  because,  if  adopted,  they  would  tend 
to  check  the  "  increasing  misery  "  of  the  working  classes 
and  to  postpone  the  "  final  catastrophe "  which  these 
classes,  made  desperate  by  unmitigated  oppression,  would 
some  fine  day  bring  about,  and  as  a  consequence  of  which 
Socialism  would  be  set  up  "  while  you  wait."  Among 
the  measures  that  the  older  Socialists  adopted  as  mere 
temporary  expedients,  but  which  many  nowadays  regard 
as  an  integral  part  of  the  Socialist  Idea,  are  the  demands 
for  greater  freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  for  the 
free  administration  of  justice,  for  universal  suffrage,  for 
the  abolition  of  national  armaments,  and  others. 

In  as  far  as  there  is  a  Socialist  Idea  nowadays,  these 
and  numerous  other  elements  belong  to  it.  While  all 
Socialists,  or  for  that  matter  a  majority,  are  not  in  agree- 
ment as  to  any  one  of  these  measures,  some  Socialists 
advocate  one  or  another  of  them  and  those  who  hold  one 
and  reject  others  claim  to  be  as  orthodox  as,  or  more  so 
than,  others  who  hold  the  others  and  reject  the  one. 
Truth  to  say,  what  is  here  termed  Practical  Socialism, 


162  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

has  no  Idea.  It  has  no  governing  principle  to  which  all 
who  avow  themselves  Socialists  are  willing  to  subscribe. 
As  the  Platonic  idea  was  lost  with  the  advent  of  Chris- 
tianity, which  showed  its  essential  truths  to  be  applicable 
only  in  that  future  life  for  which  this  present  life  is 
but  a  preparation;  as  the  Utopian  idea  was  emasculated 
by  the  breaking  up  of  Feudalism  and  Centralization  in 
Europe,  the  discovery  of  new  continents,  the  expan- 
sion of  trade  and  industry,  the  shift  of  population,  the 
growth  of  democracy  and  the  general  spread  of  civiliza- 
tion ;  so  the  Scientific  idea  began  to  die  when  the  read- 
justment of  these  movements  set  in  and  the  governments 
of  the  world  settled  down  to  the  business  of  government 
and  began  to  protect  the  weak  from  the  strong  and  to 
secure  life,  liberty,  and  property  to  all  citizens,  as  gov- 
ernments are  intended  to  do.  The  only  element  remain- 
ing to  hold  Socialism  intact  is  its  Sentiment.  Its  prin- 
ciples fly  apart  like  grains  of  sand.  Its  disciples  war 
and  clash  in  their  views  and  opinions  and  in  their  inter- 
ests. They  are  united  by  their  Sentiment  alone.  This 
alone  brings  them  together  into  organizations,  prompts 
them  to  make  demands  that  they  do  not  all  advocate  and 
to  enunciate  teachings  that  they  do  not  all  believe. 


CHAPTER  TWO 
THE  SENTIMENT 

"Workingmen  of  the  world,  unite!  you  have  nothing 
to  lose  but  your  chains ;  you  have  a  world  to  gain ! " 
The  sentiment  expressed  in  these  closing  lines  of  the 
Communist  Manifesto  is  the  aggregate  of  several  human 
passions.  The  growth  of  these  passions  from  individual 
impulses  into  social  forces  is  a  most  interesting  phase 
of  modern  history.  From  the  time  of  the  famous  En- 
closure Acts,  which  reduced  great  numbers  of  the  English 
people  to  the  direst  straits  by  depriving  them  of  the 
"  commons  "  where  they  lived, —  the  leading  event  among 
those  that  brought  forth  Utopia, —  this  growth  is  both 
marked  and  constant.  About  the  time  of  the  Enclosures 
came  the  breaking  up  of  the  Craft  Guilds,  and  this  set 
another  class  adrift  and  gave  the  growth  of  these  pas- 
sions more  impetus.  The  destruction  of  the  monasteries 
was  an  additional  factor;  it  made  more  rapid  the  dis- 
integration of  the  Guilds  and  more  wretched  the  condi- 
tion of  the  dispossessed  "  commoners." 

The  art  of  printing  was  a  powerful  auxiliary  of  the 
expanding  forces  thus  loosed.  By  this  means  the  grow- 
ing passions  were  communicated  with  great  facility  and 
kindred  spirits  far  removed  by  distance  were  brought  to- 
gether in  thought  and  feeling.  The  dissatisfied,  the  dis- 

163 


164  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

contented,  the  oppressed,  the  envious,  the  lawless,  and 
the  depraved,  united  in  a  common  complaint  that  waxed 
strong  with  agitation,  which  was  carried  on  boldly  in 
spite  of  kings  and  rulers  who,  though  they  might  silence 
the  voice,  could  not  stay  the  pen.  Utopia,  intended  as 
a  satire  on  certain  English  institutions  and  customs,  as 
a  scathing  criticism  of  England's  wealthy  classes  and  cer- 
tain of  her  nobles,  was  not  permitted  to  appear  in  More's 
own  country;  but  it  was  freely  published  on  the  Conti- 
nent. The  City  of  the  Sun  could  not  be  published  in 
Italy  on  account  of  the  royal  disfavor  it  excited  by  its 
thinly  veiled  criticism  of  Italian  traditions  and  institu- 
tions ;  but  it  appeared  in  England  without  question. 

Thus  the  philosophy  of  discontent  spread  everywhere 
in  spite  of  all  opposition.  Doubtless  its  spread  was  more 
rapid  because  of  opposition.  There  seems  to  be  some- 
thing strangely  appealing  to  mankind  in  the  writings  of 
one  suffering,  whether  justly  or  not,  from  the  iron  hand 
of  the  law, —  as  though  sympathy  with  the  misfortune  of 
a  writer  could  make  the  false  to  be  true  or  the  true  to 
be  more  true.  Pilgrim's  Progress  enjoyed  a  long  reign 
in  the  hearts  of  the  English  people  for  scarce  any  other 
reason  than  that  Bunyan  wrote  it  during  his  long  im- 
prisonment. The  classic  writings  of  Chateaubriand  were 
practically  ignored  by  the  French  until  his  exile  had 
made  of  him  a  pathetic  figure.  In  Italy,  Tasso  was 
dearer  to  the  people  than  Dante  as  long  as  his  great  epic 
was  associated  with  the  seven  years'  confinement  of  the 
author,  during  which  it  was  published  and  at  first  mis- 
takenly thought  to  have  been  written. 

In  the  spread  of  the  philosophy  of  discontent,  this  ap- 
pealing note  is  especially  manifest.  More  lost  his  head 


THE  SENTIMENT  165 

through  the  disfavor  of  royalty;  Bacon  suffered  many 
years  of  imprisonment ;  Campanella,  after  nearly  a  quar- 
ter century's  confinement,  was  only  saved  from  death 
through  the  intervention  of  a  Pope;  Harrington  barely 
escaped  the  sword  that  fell  upon  Charles  I,  and  after 
the  Restoration  his  plight  was  scarce  better,  and  he  died 
in  prison.  The  ideal  commonwealths  left  by  these  phil- 
osophical romancers,  all  except  More's,  were  conceived 
in  the  shadow  of  their  great  misfortunes.  They  passed 
on  to  other  generations  with  the  memory  of  those  mis- 
fortunes clinging  to  them.  And  this  memory  mingles  its 
gripping  pathos  with  the  sufferings  of  like  philosophers 
or  romancers  of  other  generations.  Morelly  died  in  ex- 
ile ;  Babeuf  suffered  the  confiscation  of  his  property  and 
committed  suicide  to  escape  execution ;  Krapotkin, 
Proudhon,  Marx,  Engels,  Lassalle,  wrote  in  exile  or  in 
prison. 

In  fine,  all  the  philosophers  of  Discontent,  whose  writ- 
ings have  stirred  the  sympathies  of  the  masses,  have 
set  out  their  pessimistic  views  of  society  amid  surround- 
ings and  after  experiences  that  had  for  them  so  little  of 
promise  in  life  that  their  teachings  seem  to  all  discon- 
tented spirits  to  ring  true  and  they  strike  conviction  into 
the  hearts  of  those  whose  sympathies  outrun  their  under- 
standing, as  well  as  those  whose  fear  and  distrust  out- 
weigh their  hope  and  confidence  of  society  in  general  and 
of  government  in  particular. 

The  art  of  printing  served  not  only  to  circulate  the 
expression  of  discontent  but  also  to  preserve  all  such  ex- 
pressions as  they  accumulated,  and  thus  there  came  about 
a  very  literature  of  Discontent  in  which  were  gathered 
together  the  oppressions  and  cruelties  and  wrongs  and 


166  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

wrecks  of  nations  to  excuse,  justify,  extol,  ennoble  this 
attitude  of  mind. 

But  notwithstanding  these  many  causes  tending  to  de- 
velop discontent  from  an  individual  impulse  into  a  social 
force,  there  remained  until  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century  a  powerful  restraint  to  its  full  development. 
That  restraint  was  the  Christian  religion,  whose  philos- 
ophy is  the  direct  antithesis  of  the  philosophy  of  Dis- 
content. "  Whenever  one  desires  anything  inordinately," 
wrote  the  illustrious  Thomas  a  Kempis,  "  straightway  is 
he  disquieted  in  his  heart."  And  conversely,  a  disquie- 
tude of  the  heart  signifies  an  inordinate  desire,  which  is 
contrary  to  Christian  teaching.  Hence,  so  long  as  Chris- 
tianity held  sway  in  the  hearts  of  men,  the  philosophy 
of  Discontent  could  not  secure  a  marked  degree  of  recog- 
nition. 

But  the  radicalism  of  the  eighteenth  century  did  much 
to  undermine  the  dominant  influence  of  the  teachings  of 
Christ.  Diderot,  Condillac,  Condorcet,  Linguet,  may  be 
taken  as  typical  exponents  of  the  extreme  radical  school 
in  France ;  Locke,  Hobbes,  Hume,  are  the  leading  types 
of  this  school  in  England ;  D'Holbach,  Feuerbach,  Hegel, 
Kant,  have  an  equally  questionable  distinction  as  to  Ger- 
many. The  names  of  these  writers  had  become  house- 
hold words  by  the  time  of  the  French  Revolution,  to 
bring  about  which  their  teachings  most  of  all  things 
contributed.  Those  teachings,  profoundly  pessimistic, 
frankly  revolutionary,  attacking  Church,  State,  Property, 
Family,  were  emphatically  at  war  with  Christianity  at 
every  point.  They  were  writ  in  the  vernacular,  freely 
circulated  and  widely  read.  It  is  said  that  Voltaire's 
writings,  in  which  he  attacked  Christian  ideals  with 


THE  SENTIMENT  167 

malign  hatred,  became  so  popular  that  twelve  editions 
were  exhausted  within  five  years.  In  fine,  Christianity 
momentarily  lost  its  place  in  the  hearts  of  the  masses 
who  yielded  to  the  self-imposed  tutorship  of  these  rabid 
teachers.  Its  place  in  the  universities  had  already  been 
filled  by  them,  while  the  masses  were  yet  illiterate  or 
unread,  and  hence,  when  their  poisonous  doctrines 
began  to  be  disseminated,  there  were  none  effectively 
to  warn  the  unsuspecting  people  of  their  deadly  char- 
acter. 

As  a  consequence  of  this  change  in  the  perspective 
opened  up  before  them,  the  people  generally  put  no  re- 
straint upon  their  passions.  Whatever  they  desired,  they 
desired  "  inordinately  "  and  without  recognizing  any  re- 
straint other  than  the  purely  physical.  The  Revolution 
was  the  climax.  It  was  simply  the  putting  into  prac- 
tice of  the  philosophy  of  Discontent,  which  the  masses 
had  learned  and  which  they  were  not  content  to  regard 
as  mere  theory,  but  intent  on  making  a  rule  of  action. 
The  Revolution  failed,  but  the  social  force  of  which  it 
was  the  expression  was  not  sensibly  weakened.  It 
failed,  not  because  its  spirit  had  been  subdued  by  Chris- 
tian teaching,  nor  yet  because  the  social  injustice  that 
had  immediately  provoked  it  had  been  abrogated;  it 
failed  because  of  the  blind  passion  that  brought  it  on, 
the  passion  of  Discontent,  which  fired  the  revolutionists 
with  the  spirit  of  revolt  against  the  old  order  and  con- 
sumed them  with  lust  in  the  order  that  was  established 
upon  the  ruins  of  the  old.  The  philosophy  of  Discon- 
tent inevitably  produces  failure  wherever  it  is  applied. 
It  does  not  admit  of  contentment  with  success  even,  but 
drives  forward  its  votaries  like  a  mad  god  drunken  with 


168  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

his  own  spirit  of  raging,  rampant,  desperate  discontent. 
And  when,  through  sheer  physical  exhaustion  as  it  were, 
these  votaries  halt,  whether  defeated  or  triumphant,  they 
are  discontented  still,  pitiful  alike  in  their  success  and 
in  their  failure,  a  sad  commentary  on  the  folly  of  man- 
kind in  forgetting  its  own  limitations  and  turning  against 
the  God  of  providences. 

Failing  as  it  did, —  because  its  violent  fires  burnt  it 
out, —  the  Revolution,  which  had  separated  the  people  if 
possible  all  the  further  from  God  and  religion,  instead 
of  crushing  the  spirit  of  discontent  in  the  human  heart 
implanted  it  there  all  the  more  firmly,  ready  to  break 
forth  in  repeated  revolts  when  opportunity  should  come, 
as  it  did. 

This  illustrates  the  peculiar  quality  of  religion  as  a 
civilizing  force.  Religion  lays  its  grip  upon  the  little 
monster  of  evil  desire  before  it  issues  forth  from  its  se- 
cret den  in  the  human  heart,  and  the  monster  is  strangled 
to  death  before  it  is  fairly  alive.  Civil  power,  however 
mighty,  must  suffer  the  monster  to  grow  in  the  heart,  and 
to  breed  there,  and  cannot  reach  it  until  it  issues  forth 
to  begin  its  work  of  havoc.  And  by  the  time  civil  power 
is  able  to  crush  the  full-grown  monster,  if  it  ever  is,  the 
brood  that  it  has  engendered  in  the  heart  is  ready  to  come 
forth  for  more  destruction. 

So,  when  the  reign  of  blood  begun  by  the  Revolution 
was  terminated  by  the  rule  of  iron  set  up  by  the  "  Lit- 
tle Corporal,"  only  the  one  big  dragon  at  large  was 
crushed  and  those  hidden  in  the  secret  recesses  of  the 
hearts  of  revolutionists  continued  to  grow.  They  broke 
forth  again  when  the  Corsican  fell,  again  in  1830,  again 
in  1848,  again  in  the  Paris  Commune,  and  again  and 


THE  SENTIMENT  169 

again, —  under  different  forms,  upon  different  pretenses, 
with  momentarily  different  aims,  but  having  the  same 
desperate  discontent  driving  them  on.  Instead  of  be- 
coming weaker,  this  terrible  social  force  seems  to  have 
become  stronger  after  the  Revolution.  It  became  allied 
in  that  great  upheaval  with  Envy  and  Lawlessness,  and 
this  alliance  has  not  been  broken  since. 

Envy  and  Lawlessness,  like  Discontent,  have  always 
existed  here  and  there  among  men.  But  before  the 
Revolution  they  were  never  so  widespread,  so  uniform 
in  a  class,  as  to  be  called  a  social  phenomenon.  They 
reached  this  proportion  during  the  Revolution,  or  as  an 
immediate  result  of  it.  Through  its  wholesale  confisca- 
tions and  robberies  and  its  divisions  of  property  among 
the  Sansculottes,  the  Revolution  gave  to  the  discontented 
masses  just  that  taste  of  the  pleasures  of  wealth  that  pro- 
vokes envy,  and  thereafter  the  discontent  of  those  in- 
dulged was  deeply  embittered  by  the  contemplation  of  the 
things  that  others  enjoyed.  At  the  same  time,  the  Revo- 
lution had  perpetrated  all  manner  of  crime  in  the  name  of 
the  law.  In  fact,  it  made  crime  lawful  and  not  only  pro- 
tected but  even  honored  the  most  guilty  and  the  most  ab- 
horrent criminals.  Hence,  many  came  to  believe  that  law 
is  only  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  those  in  power, 
to  be  used  generally  for  their  pleasure,  but  especially  to 
protect  them  while  they  commit  outrages  upon  the  rest 
of  mankind.  With  the  growth  of  this  belief,  lawless- 
ness developed  into  a  social  force. 

Discontent,  envy  and  lawlessness,  therefore,  are  to  be 
considered  together  as  the  social  heritage  of  civilization 
from  the  radicalism  of  the  eighteenth  century  culminat- 
ing in  the  storm  and  wreckage  of  "  Ninety-three." 


170  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

There  is  another  passion  included  in  the  Socialist  Sen- 
timent that  is  seriously  to  be  reckoned  with.  Though  it 
did  not  develop  into  a  social  force  during  the  Revolu- 
tion, nor  for  some  time  afterwards,  the  cause,  or  at  least 
the  occasion,  of  its  development  is  rooted  in  that  dread- 
ful occurrence.  This  is  the  passion  of  Greed.  As  a  pas- 
sion common  to  a  class,  Greed  is  a  modern  social  phe- 
nomenon. At  different  periods  in  the  past  there  have 
been  various  passions  so  common  to  a  class  or  a  people 
as  to  be  a  social  phenomenon.  At  one  time  this  passion 
was  to  build  great  monuments,  as  among  the  Egyptians ; 
at  another  to  develop  perfect  physical  manhood,  as  among 
the  Spartans;  at  another  to  perfect  the  arts  and  sci- 
ences, as  among  the  Athenians.  The  Hebrews  had  a 
passion  for  religion,  the  Romans  for  law,  the  Moham- 
medans for  power.  Once  the  passion  for  royalty  was 
dominant,  then  that  for  chivalry,  then  that  for  lib- 
erty. 

These  are  not  progressive  in  their  order.  An  ad- 
vanced civilization  is  often  characterized  by  a  passion 
that  was  dominant  in  a  more  barbaric  age.  The  modern 
fad  masquerading  under  the  pedantic  name  of  Eugenics 
was  no  less  a  fad  in  the  time  of  Lycurgus.  We  mod- 
erns, too,  show  an  inclination  toward  monument  build- 
ing. The  English  are  no  less  noted  for  their  love  for 
law  than  were  the  Romans.  The  passion  for  free  love  is 
not  new. 

But  before  the  French  Revolution,  Greed  is  not  ob- 
served as  having  been  a  characteristic  passion  of  any 
people  or  class  of  people.  In  Medieval  Europe  there 
were  the  Crusades,  the  Renaissance,  the  Reformation, 
and  then  came  the  passion  for  Revolution,  but  there  was 


THE  SENTIMENT  171 

no  evidence  yet  of  the  passion  of  Greed.  The  Revolu- 
tion gave  an  entirely  new  direction  to  the  march  of  civil- 
ization. It  crippled  the  force  of  religion,  crushed  the 
power  of  royalty,  swept  away  the  old  traditions  and 
the  established  laws  and  tried  to  level  down  the  inequali- 
ties among  men  by  closing  all  avenues  to  distinction  that 
had  formerly  existed.  It  accomplished  this  temporarily 
by  force  and  then  sought  to  secure  it  permanently  by 
legislation.  The  result  was  natural  enough,  though  it 
was  not,  perhaps  could  not  have  been,  foreseen.  Cut  off 
from  all  other  means  of  rising  to  a  superior  position, 
men  of  superior  ability  bent  their  energies  to  accumu- 
lating wealth,  and  then  more  wealth,  and  the  desire  for 
wealth  became  a  passion  that  expanded  and  grew  until 
it  gripped  whole  classes  in  its  toils  with  that  absorbing 
tenacity  with  which  it  had  formerly  taken  hold  of  the  iso- 
lated and  outcast  Jew.  The  grip  of  this  passion  on  mod- 
ern classes  was  more  intense  and  more  deadly  than  ever  it 
was  on  the  Jew.  The  Jew  never  quite  forgot  his  religion, 
though  he  did  not  apply  it  strictly  in  his  dealings  with 
a  people  that  despised  him.  He  never  regarded  money 
as  altogether  the  most  precious  thing  on  earth  or  in 
heaven,  but  only  on  earth.  But  those  who  imbibed  the 
spirit  of  the  Revolution  made  no  exception ;  having  come 
to  disregard  heaven,  they  held  money  as  the  most  pre- 
cious thing  anywhere.  With  them  the  passion  of  greed 
became  an  all-consuming  one.  Rooted  in  discontent,  em- 
bittered with  envy,  hateful  of  all  restraint,  brooking  no 
law  and  no  authority,  this  passion  drove  its  victims  to  the 
most  desperate  issues  with  social  institutions,  which 
alone,  since  religion  had  come  to  be  despised,  could  pro- 
tect the  Haves  from  the  Have-Nots. 


i;2  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Before  the  time  of  Marx  and  Engels,  the  alliance  of 
Discontent,  Envy,  Lawlessness,  and  Greed  was  spontan- 
eous rather  than  studied,  a  sort  of  natural  association  of 
kindred  spirits  instead  of  a  conscious  effort  toward  or- 
ganization. The  discontented  freely  circulated  their  pes- 
simistic views,  the  envious  read  them  with  sympathetic 
approval,  the  lawless  frankly  took  occasion  to  put  them 
into  practice,  the  greedy  sought  by  every  means  to  turn 
them  to  profit.  But  there  was  not  among  these  that  con- 
cert of  action  or  of  thought  that  is  essential  to  growth 
along  definite  lines.  There  was  not  that  "  class-con- 
sciousness "  which  Socialists  so  much  rely  upon  to  unite 
all  the  jarring  social  factions  into  a  single  class  having 
the  determined  purpose  to  destroy  society  and  raise  itself 
up  on  the  ruins. 

Marx  and  Engels  endeavored  to  bring  about  this  sin- 
gleness of  purpose.  In  the  frankest  of  revolutionary 
terms  they  appealed  to  all  the  malcontents  of  society  to 
organize  upon  a  world-wide  scale  for  purposes  of  direct 
and  wholesale  destruction.  They  laid  emphasis  upon 
the  necessity  as  well  as  the  propriety  for  such  organiza- 
tion by  "  scientifically  "  pointing  out  how  there  existed 
among  other  classes  what  they  termed  a  "  gigantic  con- 
spiracy deliberately  and  systematically  to  rob  and  keep 
in  subjection  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  their  power  to 
rob  the  working  classes,"  which  were  the  classes  to  whom 
these  self-inspired  prophets  appealed.  They  pretended 
to  see  no  other  purpose  in  religion  than  to  further  this 
conspiracy  by  preaching  up  the  virtues  of  poverty,  hu- 
mility, obedience,  self-denial,  in  order  to  persuade  its  vic- 
tims to  submit  graciously  to  being  robbed.  They  pre- 
tended to  see  no  other  object  in  government  and  law 


THE  SENTIMENT  173 

than  to  carry  out  this  conspiracy  by  forcible  means  when- 
ever religion  should  fail  in  its  persuasive  tactics.  They 
held  the  right  of  property  to  be  unnatural  and  wrong  and 
as  having  been  foisted  upon  society  through  this  con- 
spiracy in  order  to  secure  to  the  possessing  classes  under 
the  sanction  of  religion  and  the  State,  the  spoils  accumu- 
lated through  exploitation  and  robbery.  They  regarded 
the  monogamous  institution  of  the  family  in  the  light  of 
this  conspiracy  and  as  a  part  of  it,  intended  to  perpetuate 
to  their  known  offspring  the  holdings  of  the  possessing 
classes.  They  claimed  to  have  sounded  the  depths  of 
the  motive  for  all  human  action  and  found  it  to  be  a 
desire  to  increase  or  control  the  food  supply.  On  ac- 
count of  this  "  discovery "  they  re-wrote  the  history 
of  the  world  in  such  a  way  as  to  persuade  all  who 
were  predisposed  to  believe  it,  that  since  the  first  divi- 
sions of  property  into  "  mine  "  and  "  thine,"  society  has 
been  divided  into  two  great  classes,  the  Haves  and  the 
Have-Nots,  and  between  these  there  has  always  been 
and  must  always  be  a  deadly  struggle  going  on.  The 
Haves  are  few  in  number,  and  growing  fewer ;  the  Have- 
Nots  are  a  multitude,  and  increasing.  The  former  tri- 
umph over  the  latter  and  rob  them  because  they  are  or- 
ganized and  bent  on  a  common  purpose  and  make  use  of 
all  existing  institutions,  while  the  latter,  unconscious  of 
their  numbers  and  power,  and  indifferent  to  their  class 
interests,  quietly  submit. 

All  this  is  clearly  and  forcibly  set  out  in  the  famous 
Manifesto  of  Marx  and  Engels,  which  closes  with  the 
dramatic  appeal  to  the  workingmen  of  the  world  to  unite 
their  great  numbers  into  a  class-conscious  organization 
that  will  rise  up  against  society  in  force  and  without 


174  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

fear,  inspired  by  the  desperate  thought  that  they  have  the 
world  to  gain  and  nothing  to  lose  but  their  chains. 

In  keeping  with  the  spirit  of  the  time  (1848),  the  up- 
rising called  for  by  the  Manifesto  was  called  a  Revolu- 
tion, and  was  said  to  be  distinguished  from  previous 
revolutionary  movements  only  by  its  economic  and 
"  class-conscious  "  aspects,  its  international  scope  and  its 
"  scientific "  character.  In  reality  it  was  a  destructive 
movement.  No  new  society  was  proposed.  No  law  or 
social  institution,  existing  or  imagined,  was  pointed  out 
as  fitting.  The  immediate  aim  was  to  destroy;  the  ulti- 
mate, to  let  come  what  might  come.  Only  a  single 
thought  was  given  to  the  future, —  the  destroyers  would 
own  the  world.  Should  it  prove  too  much  for  them,  they 
would  be  none  the  worse  off  for  that, —  they  have  noth- 
ing but  chains  to  lose.  The  idea  reminds  one  of  the  fan- 
tastic notion  of  Falstaff,  who  didn't  think  any  sort  of 
wrong  would  hurt  him  if  he  gained  the  world  by  doing 
it,  since  then  the  world  would  be  his  and  he  could  right 
the  wrong  to  suit  himself. 

The  Nihilism  thus  brought  into  alliance  with  the  other 
passions  that  form  the  Socialist  Sentiment,  itself  included 
a  whole  array  of  minor  passions.  Chief  among  these 
were  those  expressed  in  atheism,  anarchy,  confiscation, 
and  free-love,  aimed  against  religion,  State,  property  and 
family.  Atheism  had  been  spreading  for  a  century  be- 
fore Marx's  time,  and  during  his  day  was  the  vogue 
among  the  "  Intellectuals "  of  Europe.  The  last  half 
century,  in  which  throughout  Europe  there  were  some 
hundreds  of  revolutions  more  or  less  notable,  had  made 
anarchy  popular  among  certain  classes.  The  wholesale 
confiscations  of  property  during  that  unsettled  period  had 


THE  SENTIMENT  175 

developed  a  passion  for  this  practice  that  only  needed 
favorable  opportunity  to  be  vented  on  a  much  larger 
scale  than  ever  before.  The  revival  of  the  ancient  bill 
of  divorce,  which  seems  always  to  come  about  when 
"  hearts  are  hardened,"  had  given  to  lustful  natures  a 
taste  of  freedom  from  the  restraints  imposed  by  monog- 
amous marriage,  and  in  certain  circles  this  grew  into  a 
passion  which  demanded  the  abrogation  of  the  marriage 
relation.  Into  this  poisoned  atmosphere  came  the  Mani- 
festo, with  its  clarion-like  call  to  organize  all  the  dis- 
cordant elements  of  society  into  a  single  force.  It  pre- 
tended to  be  based  on  science.  It  pretended  to  breathe 
a  spirit  of  sympathy  for  the  unfortunate  and  the  op- 
pressed. Both  claims  were  false,  but  the  classes  to  which 
they  were  addressed  were  both  unwilling  and  unable  to 
test  their  verity.  These  classes  almost  eagerly  answered 
the  call.  They  gathered  together  like  so  many  forces  of 
destruction  and  the  passion  of  Nihilism  appeared  as  a 
new  social  phenomenon  and  was  allied  with  Discontent, 
Envy,  Lawlessness,  and  Greed  to  round  out  to  comple- 
tion the  Socialist  Sentiment. 

In  the  progress  of  the  Socialist  movement,  its  original 
sentiment  has  not  changed  with  time  or  place.  It  is 
everywhere  seen  to  embody  the  same  elements,  to  spring 
from  the  same  conditions,  to  represent  the  same  passions. 
But  in  times  of  widespread  prosperity,  and  in  places 
where  a  large  measure  of  civic  well-being  abounds,  this 
sentiment  has  been  overshadowed  by  other  sentiments 
that,  while  not  socialistic  in  their  character,  are  held  by 
many  Socialists.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned  the 
sentiment  of  philanthropy,  which  prompts  many  who  are 
sensible  to  the  sufferings  of  the  poor,  and  who  mistake 


176  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

the  principles  and  the  aims  of  Socialism,  to  ally  them- 
selves with  the  movement.  The  democratic  sentiment 
prompts  others  to  join  it  from  the  misplaced  conviction 
that  it  tends  toward  more  complete  self-government. 
The  sentiments  that  give  rise  to  trade-unionism,  frater- 
nalism,  co-operation,  and  other  expressions  of  the  grow- 
ing demand  for  social  justice,  are  also  prolific  in  the  way 
of  giving  birth  to  Socialist  sympathies. 

These  sentiments  do  not  belong  to  the  Socialist  Senti- 
ment. But  in  order  to  keep  the  movement  active  during 
periods  when,  on  account  of  general  satisfaction  among 
the  masses,  due  to  prosperous  conditions,  its  true  senti- 
ment becomes  dormant,  and  the  Socialist  appeals  conse- 
quently fall  on  deaf  ears,  these  sentiments  are  tactfully 
utilized  by  Socialist  leaders  and  propagandists.  The  pre- 
tense of  adopting  these  sentiments  serves  to  give  the 
movement  a  specious  appearance  of  respectability  and  en- 
ables its  apologists  to  appeal  to  well-meaning  reformers 
at  times  when  their  revolutionary  and  nihilistic  sentiment 
fails  to  meet  with  response. 

Nothing  is  more  fatal  to  a  true  perspective  of  Social- 
ism than  to  confuse  the  sentiment  that  gave  it  birth, 
and  that  will  give  it  victory,  if  it  ever  attains  to  victory, 
with  the  sentiments  that  are  independent  of  its  philoso- 
phy and  its  teachings.  Philanthropy,  democracy,  trade- 
unionism  and  the  like,  are  not  infrequently  found  com- 
bined in  organizations  that  are  essentially  anti-Socialistic, 
but  discontent,  envy,  lawlessness,  greed,  and  nihilism 
are  not  combined  in  anything  but  Socialism.  As  an  or- 
ganization, Socialism  cannot  claim  credit  for  a  single  act 
of  philanthropy.  It  has  never  been  friendly  to  trades- 
unions  as  such.  The  absence  of  a  fraternal  spirit  in  its 


THE  SENTIMENT  177 

organization  is  perhaps  more  marked  than  in  any  other 
organization  known  to  history.  These  facts  will  appear 
more  conclusively  in  the  history  of  the  Movement,  which 
is  to  follow.  They  are  mentioned  here  to  emphasize  the 
distinctive  character  of  the  Socialist  Sentiment,  which 
is  an  aggregate  of  ignoble  passions  which,  before  Marx 
and  Engels  called  them  together,  were  never  united  on 
earth. 


CHAPTER  THREE 

THE  MOVEMENT 
I.     FORMATIVE  PERIOD 

The  history  of  the  Socialist  movement  may  be  said  to 
begin  with  the  final  stage  of  the  French  Revolution. 
The  first  stage  of  that  revolution  was  marked  by  a  kind 
of  Constitutionalism  that  sharply  distinguishes  it  from 
the  final  stage.  The  States-General,  or  French  Parle- 
tnent,  was  assembled  in  1789.  It  was  convoked  on  this 
occasion  the  first  time  since  1641,  at  the  request  of 
Necker,  First  Minister  under  Louis  XVI.  Necker  had 
succeeded  Turgot,  the  famous  economist,  who  was  re- 
tired on  account  of  his  effort  to  abolish  certain  privileges 
relating  to  tax  exemptions  which  had  long  been  enjoyed 
by  the  Nobles  and  the  Clergy.  Louis,  by  no  means  the 
least  worthy  of  French  monarchs,  was  in  sympathy  with 
Turgot's  aim  equitably  to  distribute  the  burdens  of  taxa- 
tion, and  while  he  seemed  to  yield  to  the  pressure  of  the 
Court  by  dismissing  him,  Necker  was  selected  with  a 
view  to  his  carrying  through  the  project  of  his  predeces- 
sor, and  to  this  end  the  States-General  was  summoned. 

This  body  was  composed  of  the  Nobles,  the  Clergy, 
and  the  Commons,  or  Third  Estate,  which  was  elevated 
to  equal  dignity  with  the  two  feudal  orders  during  the 
twelfth  century,  by  Louis  VI.  Whether  the  third  order 
was  entitled  to  a  majority  over  the  other  two  when  as- 

178 


THE  MOVEMENT  179 

sembled,  is  a  mooted  question.  It  does  not  appear  to 
have  been  so  constituted,  but  it  seems  to  have  been  ac- 
corded this  right  on  occasion.  However  that  may  be, 
when  the  three  assembled  in  '89,  some  six  weeks  were 
spent  in  fruitless  discussion  of  this  question.  The  Third 
Estate  finally  withdrew  from  the  two  more  ancient  or- 
ders and  declared  itself  to  be  the  National  Assembly  of 
the  French  people.  This  was  the  occasion  for  the  pop- 
ular uprisings  that  M.  Taine  well  describes  as  "  spon- 
taneous anarchy."  These  were  not  so  much  a  movement 
as  a  demonstration,  not  improbably  intended  in  a  way 
to  induce  the  King  and  Court  to  acquiesce  in  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Assembly.  At  least  that  was  their  effect. 
Within  a  month,  in  the  presence  of  delegates  from  all 
of  France,  the  King  subscribed  to  the  new  constitution, 
and  with  that  the  demonstrations  subsided. 

This  constitution  deprived  the  Nobles  and  the  Clergy 
of  all  privileges  and  of  practically  all  power.  It  did  not 
seriously  impair  the  prerogatives  of  the  Crown,  however, 
and  two  years  later  the  National  Assembly  was  dis- 
solved and  its  place  was  taken  by  the  Legislative  Assem- 
bly, whose  constitution  left  the  Monarchy  but  little  more 
than  a  name.  But  even  the  name  was  too  much  for  the 
restive  spirit  that  shortly  sprang  up  at  the  instigations 
of  Danton,  Robespierre,  Marat,  Herbert,  Chaumette, 
who  were  embittered  by  the  frequent  issues  of  paper 
money  that  impoverished  France  and  emboldened  by  the 
great  famine  and  drouth  that  made  poverty  equivalent 
to  starvation.  During  the  year  after  the  King  had 
sworn  to  the  constitution  of  the  Legislative  Assembly, 
which  left  him  only  a  figurehead,  the  Republic  was 
formally  declared,  September,  1792. 


i8o  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Events  moved  rapidly  from  this  time.  There  was  no 
longer  any  pretense  of  Constitutionalism.  The  Girond- 
ists, the  Jacobins,  the  Herbertists,  joined  in  the  fell  at- 
tack against  the  social  order,  only  halting  in  their  de- 
struction of  society  long  enough  to  fly  at  each  other's 
throats.  The  King  was  beheaded  in  January,  1793. 
Marat  was  then  accused  by  his  lawless  colleagues.  Her- 
bert fell  next;  and  then  Danton.  Robespierre  was  now 
supreme.  He  could  condemn  whomsoever  he  would  to 
the  guillotine,  and  he  exercised  this  power  both  in  person 
and  by  proxy  with  a  free  hand.  Montgaillard,  the  his- 
torian, estimates  the  victims  of  his  atrocity  by  the  thou- 
sands. He  seems  to  have  surrounded  himself  with  the 
most  depraved  creatures,  in  order  that  once  they  had 
done  his  murderous  work,  he  might  want  for  no  excuse  to 
dispatch  them  also.  Thiers  says  of  Robespierre :  "  He 
presents  himself  to  our  contemplation  as  one  of  the  most 
odious  beings  who  has  ever  domineered  over  men,  and 
we  should  say  also,  one  of  the  most  vile."  It  is  no  won- 
der that  his  multiplied  barbarities  palled  upon  the  peo- 
ple, even  though  they  had  been  athirst  for  blood.  In 
July,  1794,  he  fell,  unloved  and  unlamented.  Tallien, 
Collot,  and  Billaud-Varennes,  who  finally  compassed  his 
ruin,  were  no  less  terrorists  than  Robespierre,  but  their 
day  was  shorter,  for  they  were  condemned  four  months 
later.  And  in  less  than  a  month  afterward,  the  "  Moun- 
tainist "  leaders  who  had  destroyed  them  were  them- 
selves brought  to  the  block. 

In  April,  1795,  occurred  the  "  Insurrection  of  the 
Hungry,"  which  was  incited  by  the  Thermidorians,  suc- 
cessors to  the  Jacobins;  and  in  May,  that  of  the  First 
Prairial,  led  by  the  successors  to  the  Girondists.  A  final 


THE  MOVEMENT  181 

insurrection  occurred  in  October,  fomented  by  the  dis- 
contented elements  left  of  the  Jacobins,  Thermidorians, 
Girondists,  and  other  despairing  and  desperate  parties  of 
the  radical  revolutionary  type.  It  was  this  insurrection- 
ary movement  that  brought  his  opportunity  to  Napoleon. 
With  its  failure,  the  Terror  was  brought  to  a  close,  and 
with  the  Terror,  the  Revolution. 

"  One  event  remains  to  be  mentioned,"  say  the  So- 
cialist writers  Morris  and  Bax,  in  their  treatment  of  the 
"  French  Revolution  —  Proletarian  Stage  "  ( Growth  and 
Outcome  of  Socialism),  "the  attempt  of  Baboeuf  and 
his  followers  to  get  a  proletarian  government  recognized. 
He  and  Darthes  were  condemned  to  death.  Many  others 
were  condemned  to  prison  or  exile.  And  so  ended  the 
first  Socialist  propaganda."  How  fittingly  has  it  been 
observed  that  the  Revolution,  like  Saturn,  produced  chil- 
dren only  to  devour  them ! 

The  striking  feature  about  the  last  three  years  of  the 
Revolution,  so  aptly  described  by  Socialists  as  the  "  Pro- 
letarian Stage,"  is  the  utter  lack  of  constructive  action. 
Those  years  saw  destruction  a-plenty.  Religion,  science, 
art,  law,  government, —  all  civilized  institutions,  were  at- 
tacked with  an  unsparing  hand.  The  work  of  many  cen- 
turies was  undone  in  those  years.  But  nothing  was 
done.  Not  a  single  permanent  institution  was  estab- 
lished. Not  one  enduring  law  was  made.  No  lasting 
ideal  was  set  up.  Herbert  and  his  followers,  known  as 
"  Enrages"  (rabids),  proclaimed  the  worship  of  Reason, 
but  none  worshipped.  Robespierre  instituted  the  Reli- 
gion of  the  Supreme  Being,  but  none  believed.  The 
Sansculottes  were  invested  with  property  rights,  but  none 
respected  them.  Sunday  was  abolished  for  the  "  Tenth 


182  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

Day  Rest,"  but  it  was  not  noticed.  The  Right  to  Labor 
was  declared,  but  nobody  worked.  Liberty  was  pro- 
claimed, but  none  were  free.  Fraternity  and  Equality 
were  assured,  but  men  fraternized  only  when  put  in 
dungeons  and  became  equal  only  when  their  heads 
dropped  in  the  same  basket  after  passing  under  the  guillo- 
tine. Carlyle  well  says,  though  like  most  of  his  say- 
ings this  too,  perhaps  is  tinctured  with  irony :  "  The 
Revolution  was  the  frightfullest  thing  that  was  ever 
born  of  Time."  Socialists  are  not  envied  the  consolation 
they  feel  in  knowing  that  its  most  frightful  aspect  "  rep- 
resented the  proletarian  instinct  or  germ  of  Socialism." 
We  are  told  that  this  instinct  failed  to  triumph  "  only 
because  the  proletarians  were  not  united,  not  conscious 
of  their  class  interests,  therefore  they  could  make  no  head 
against  society,  which  they  had  indeed  shaken,  but  which 
they  were  not  yet  able  to  destroy." 

During  the  time  of  Napoleon's  career  was  not  a  good 
season  for  the  growth  of  this  Socialist  germ.  Napoleon 
did  not  consider  it  a  very  healthy  germ,  and  from  what 
he  saw  of  it  while  it  was  germinating,  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  he  was  averse  to  its  taking  root.  Not  only  in 
France,  but  throughout  Europe,  and  in  America,  the 
wholesale  destruction  of  society  had  ceased  to  be  an  ac- 
ceptable or  even  a  tolerable  proposal.  Hence,  instead  of 
agitating  insurrection  and  revolt,  Socialists  began  to  ad- 
vocate constructive  experiments.  In  France,  Saint-Si- 
mon and  Fourier  put  forward  their  novel  schemes  for 
the  reorganization  of  society.  In  England,  Owen  began 
his  New  Lanark  Mills  experiment.  In  America  the 
Economites,  who  had  been  ridiculed  out  of  Germany, 
established  their  Harmony  Society. 


THE  MOVEMENT  183 

The  fall  of  Napoleon  and  the  Restoration  brought 
about  another  outburst  of  the  proletarian  instinct,  little 
more  than  an  incident  so  far  as  events  go,  but  important 
in  its  bearings.  The  immediate  cause  of  this  petty  re- 
volt was  the  vote  of  the  Chamber  adopting  Corvette's 
financial  scheme  to  raise  the  seven  hundred  million  in- 
demnity required  of  France  by  the  Allies  in  the  treaty 
of  1815.  The  scheme  was  to  pledge  the  forest  land  of 
the  clergy  to  raise  the  sum  required.  This  had  been 
the  government's  customary  way  of  raising  money  since 
the  beginning  of  the  Revolution,  when  Talleyrand's  pro- 
posal to  issue  four  hundred  million  assignats  against  the 
church  lands  was  adopted.  Similar  action  afterwards 
was  frequent,  and  the  forest  land  was  about  all  that  was 
left  of  the  once  vast  estates  of  the  clergy.  It  was  per- 
fectly agreeable,  therefore,  so  far  as  the  irreligious 
masses  were  concerned,  to  take  over  this  remnant  of  the 
clerical  possessions.  But  Corvette's  plan  included  a  pro- 
vision to  pay  the  clergy,  not  full  compensation,  but  the 
sum  of  four  millions,  which  though  pitifully  inadequate 
as  a  purchase  price,  was  sufficient  to  recognize  the  right 
of  property.  The  proletarian  masses,  not  recognizing 
property  rights,  especially  in  the  clergy,  whom  they  were 
taught  to  look  upon  as  an  idle  and  a  parasitic  class,  re- 
belled at  the  proposal  to  pay  anything  for  the  forest 
lands.  They  realized  that,  though  the  sum  stipulated 
was  but  a  pittance,  its  payment  would  be  a  step  in  re- 
trenchment from  the  excesses  of  the  Revolution.  They 
became  deeply  incensed  against  the  clergy  on  this  ac- 
count, held  numerous  assemblies,  drafted  petitions  to  the 
government,  started  riots,  and  planned  a  general  insur- 
rection. But  the  authorities  met  the  situation  with  un- 


184  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

usual  dispatch.  There  was  a  reason.  The  Allies  would 
hardly  accept  money  derived  from  out  and  out  confisca- 
tion; therefore,  the  clergy  must  be  paid  something  if 
only  to  prevent  the  Allies  from  having  to  refuse  tainted 
money.  So  this  insurrection  was  put  down  before  it  had 
fairly  started.  It  lasted  but  a  few  months  and  caused 
but  little  bloodshed  outside  of  Paris.  It  is  of  no  con- 
sequence in  the  history  of  France,  but  marks  a  stage  in 
the  development  of  the  "  proletarian  instinct  or  Socialist 
germ." 

Following  this  still-born  insurrection  there  was  com- 
parative quiet  among  the  proletarian  classes  of  France 
until  the  revolution  of  1830,  which  deposed  Charles  X 
and  enthroned  Louis  Philippe.  The  immediate  cause  of 
this  sudden  outbreak  was  the  withdrawal  by  Charles  of 
a  large  measure  of  the  freedom  of  the  press  that  his 
predecessor  had  granted.  Among  the  numerous  upris- 
ings, revolutions,  and  counter-revolutions  that  began  in 
France  during  the  century  following  1789,  this  one  of 
1830  perhaps  at  the  outset  was  most  nearly  a  movement 
for  self-government,  and  the  freest  from  base  and  law- 
less passions.  But  this  distinctive  aspect  did  not  long 
obtain.  The  revolution  did  not  confine  itself  to  the  over- 
throw of  a  dynasty.  It  gave  rise  to  pretensions  and 
hopes  that  aroused  the  allied  passions  of  the  Socialist 
sentiment  to  activity  and  united  all  the  schools  and  all 
the  sects  that  were  dreaming  of  new  social  schemes  and 
organizations.  Writing  of  this  event  in  his  Memoirs, 
Guizot  says :  "  The  Saint-Simonians,  the  Fourierists,  the 
Socialists  and  the  Communists,  at  variance  with  each 
other  in  principle,  and  unequal  in  strength  as  in  intelli- 
gence, were  all  in  a  state  of  ambitious  effervescence. 


THE  MOVEMENT  185 

The  entire  government,  the  monarchy,  the  chambers,  the 
magistracy,  the  administration,  were  attacked  with  un- 
dissembled  violence.  Their  total  overthrow  was  unre- 
servedly proposed."  In  his  history  of  the  time,  Alison 
says:  "The  state  of  the  working  classes,  which  had 
rapidly  degenerated  in  consequence  of  the  first  revolu- 
tion, was  brought  to  a  climax  of  horror  by  the  effects  of 
the  second.  They  were  surprised  and  angry  to  find 
themselves  just  as  unhappy  on  the  day  after  as  on  the 
day  before  the  *  Great  Days.'  They  gathered  together  in 
the  streets  and  on  the  square  to  command  (  !)  the  govern- 
ment to  procure  for  them  diminution  of  their  labor. 
They  wanted  to  break  the  machines  which  they  said  sup- 
pressed employment."  Some  fifteen  years  previously,  in 
England,  the  Luddites  had  carried  on  an  organized  move- 
ment for  the  destruction  of  machinery,  and  at  the  time 
of  which  Alison  writes,  there  had  just  begun  the  English 
Chartist  movement,  of  which  the  "  Plug  Riots "  (so 
named  from  the  practice  of  bursting  steam  boilers  by 
pulling  out  the  plugs),  were  a  characteristic  tactical 
measure. 

At  the  same  time  that  the  proletariat  of  France  was 
seeking  to  destroy  both  the  machinery  of  government  and 
of  modern  industry,  this  class  was  not  idle  in  other  coun- 
tries, and  there  was  revolutionary  activity  manifest  in 
Belgium,  Italy,  Portugal,  Spain,  Poland,  Hungary,  and 
the  Slavonic  provinces  of  Austria.  Germany  alone 
seemed  to  be  free  from  domestic  disorder.  But,  strange 
to  say,  from  Germany  came  the  intellectual  force  that 
finally  crystallized  the  general  discontent  into  a  concrete 
movement.  If  the  German  proletariat  was  slow  to  join 
in  the  violent  demonstrations  elsewhere  breaking  out,  it 


186  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

was  more  because  of  the  German  temperament  than  on 
account  of  lack  of  sympathy  with  the  spirit  of  the  times. 
When  Rodbertus,  Marx,  Engels,  Lassalle,  had  thoroughly 
disseminated  their  teachings,  and  the  German  Associa- 
tions of  Workingmen,  organized  through  Lassalle's  in- 
domitable energy,  had  formed  centers  of  agitation 
throughout  the  nation,  Germany  was  ripe  for  violence, 
and  the  European  revolutions  of  1848  found  her  no  lag- 
gard in  the  fray. 

Rodbertus  preceded  Marx  by  some  fifteen  years,  but 
it  is  to  the  latter  we  must  credit  the  greatest  influence 
in  finally  crystallizing  into  a  movement  the  social  fer- 
ment whose  effervescent  disturbances  had  marred  the 
quiet  of  Europe  for  so  many  years.  He  was  seconded 
in  this  work  by  Engels  and  Lassalle,  the  first  his  literary 
companion  and  co-worker,  the  second  his  propagandist, 
agitator,  and  organizer.  Marx  began  his  public  career 
as  an  editor,  in  1841.  Two  years  later  his  paper  was 
suppressed  and  he  was  compelled  to  leave  Germany.  It 
was  then  that  Lassalle  began  his  work  of  organizing  the 
discontented  workingmen  of  his  country.  He  drew  all 
his  theories  from  Marx,  whose  writings  he  zealously  cir- 
culated. These  writings  did  not  cease  with  Marx's  ex- 
ile, but  increased  instead.  Marx  went  to  Paris,  and  there 
he  met  Engels,  and  shortly  afterwards  the  two  published 
their  first  joint  work,  The  Holy  Family,  from  the  Chris- 
tian viewpoint  a  most  infamous  first-born.  Thenceforth 
the  writings  of  these  two  were  as  prolific  as  they  were 
inflammatory.  Their  seditious  character  was  so  pro- 
nounced that  Marx  and  Engels  were  expelled  from 
France.  They  went  to  Brussels  to  continue  their  propa- 
ganda, and  there,  in  1847,  at  the  request  of  the  Com- 


THE  MOVEMENT  187 

munist  Union,  drew  up  the  famous  Communist  Mani- 
festo. From  Brussels,  also,  they  were  expelled,  and  went 
to  Cologne,  only  to  be  again  driven  forth.  They  now 
took  refuge  in  London,  where  they  remained. 

The  revolutions  of  1848,  especially  that  in  France, 
which  Bradford  in  his  Lesson  of  Popular  Government 
says  did  "  more  than  any  other  event  in  history  to  lower 
France  in  the  estimation  of  the  world,"  thoroughly 
aroused  Continental  Europe  to  the  necessity  of  suppress- 
ing revolutionary  societies.  In  consequence,  their  lead- 
ers everywhere  suffered  expulsion.  London  became  the 
Mecca  for  these  exiles  and  their  more  zealous  followers 
who  volunteered  to  share  their  lot.  At  the  instigation 
of  Marx,  a  convention  of  "  proletarians  "  from  all  coun- 
tries in  Europe  was  called  to  assemble  in  London  to  dis- 
cuss the  project  of  an  international  union,  and,  as  a 
consequence,  The  International  Workingmen's  Associa- 
tion was  formed. 

The  object  of  this  organization  was  to  provide  a  So- 
cialist world-center,  from  which  would  radiate  a  system 
of  controls  that  would  serve  to  bring  about  a  universal 
revolution.  Some  sixty  years  of  revolutionizing  in  Eu- 
rope, during  which  time  several  hundred  more  or  less 
serious  revolts  terminated  disastrously,  forced  the  con- 
viction that  it  was  futile  to  attempt  to  destroy  society 
by  intermittent  and  localized  uprisings.  At  the  same 
time,  the  uniform  and  complete  failure  of  all  experi- 
ments undertaken  in  the  way  of  setting  up  Socialism  in 
the  midst  of  society,  left  no  doubt  as  to  the  futility  of 
attempting  to  establish  Socialism  in  that  manner. 
Clearly,  society  must  be  destroyed  before  Socialism 
would  flourish.  But  society  resisted  all  efforts  to  de- 


i88  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

stroy  it.  When  the  attacking  forces  seemed  about  to 
prevail  against  it  in  one  country,  the  powers  of  another 
would  be  invoked  to  put  those  forces  down,  as  was  done 
in  France  time  and  again.  And  if  the  attacking  forces 
would  not  down,  as  in  the  case  of  Poland,  the  powers 
would  divide  the  country  among  themselves.  Hence,  the 
"  International,"  to  bring  about  the  "  Great  Revolution  " 
in  which  simultaneous  uprisings  in  all  countries  would 
prevent  them  from  coming  to  each  other's  assistance. 
With  the  organization  of  this  body  the  formation  of  the 
Socialist  movement  was  complete  in  all  its  elements. 

II.    THE  "  INTERNATIONAL  " 

Marx  was  the  dominant  figure  in  this  organization 
from  its  beginning.  Its  form  as  well  as  its  character 
was  made  to  conform  strictly  to  his  teachings.  Maz- 
zini,  the  Italian  revolutionist,  tried  to  procure  the  adop- 
tion of  a  constitution  not  in  harmony  with  Marx's  pro- 
posals, but  he  failed  lamentably.  The  constitution 
adopted,  which  was  in  the  form  of  a  proclamation,  em- 
bodied all  of  the  salient  principles  of  the  Manifesto  writ- 
ten fifteen  years  before.  It  appealed  to  the  same  classes 
as  did  the  Manifesto,  bewailed  society  in  the  same  terms, 
inveighed  against  capitalists  with  the  same  bitterness,  and 
concluded  with  the  famous  rallying  cry :  "  Proletarians 
of  all  countries,  unite ! " 

For  some  seven  years  after  its  organization,  the  Inter- 
national convened  almost  every  year,  now  in  one  coun- 
try and  now  in  another,  at  Geneva,  Brussels,  Basle,  Lon- 
don, New  York.  Its  first  practical  results  are  seen  in 
the  Paris  Commune  of  1871,  the  most  thoroughly  law- 
less and  inexcusable  uprising  that  perhaps  ever  occurred 


THE  MOVEMENT  189 

in  the  world.  The  Franco-Prussian  war  left  France 
prostrate.  The  indemnity  required  by  Germany,  the 
greatest  in  history,  threatened  to  overwhelm  the  con- 
quered nation.  Guided  by  the  International,  the  Social- 
ists took  advantage  of  the  conditions  to  foment  an  insur- 
rection whose  aim  was  to  destroy  the  remnant  of  the 
French  nation,  blot  out  her  civilization,  and  bring  into 
existence  the  first  Socialist  society. 

Writing  of  this  event  in  the  i6th  chapter  of  their 
Growth  of  Socialism,  Morris  and  Bax  say :  "  The  re- 
sult of  the  war  seemed  to  offer  at  least  a  chance  to  the 
rapidly  increasing  Socialist  party,  if  they  could  manage 
to  take  advantage  of  it.  Accordingly,  under  the  guid- 
ance of  the  International,  the  French  Socialists  deter- 
mined to  take  action  if  an  opportunity  offered.  Nor  did 
the  opportunity  fail.  In  October,  while  the  siege  [the 
terrible  siege  of  Paris  that  should  have  called  forth  the 
last  vestige  of  patriotism],  was  still  in  progress,  a  ris- 
ing headed  by  Blanqui  nearly  succeeded.  .  .  .  After  the 
siege,  the  possession  of  arms,  especially  cannon,  by  the 
proletariat,  in  the  face  of  the  disarmed  and  disorganized 
army,  afforded  the  opportunity  desired  by  the  Social- 
ists. The  Central  Committee,  largely  composed  of  mem- 
bers of  the  International,  got  into  their  hand  the  execu- 
tive power.  Enactments  of  a  distinctive  Socialist  nature 
were  passed,  involving  the  suspension  of  contract,  aboli- 
tion of  rents,  and  confiscation  of  property.  .  .  .  The  re- 
volt was  at  last  drowned  in  the  blood  of  the  workers 
of  Paris.  The  immediate  result  was  to  crush  Socialism 
for  the  time  by  the  destruction  of  a  whole  generation  of 
its  most  determined  recruits.  The  fall  of  the  Commune 
naturally  involved  that  of  the  International.  The  imme- 


190  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

diate  failure  of  its  action  was  obvious  and  blinded  people 
to  its  indestructible  principles." 

Internal  dissensions,  which  are  an  ever-present  source 
of  disruption  in  Socialist  organizations,  hastened  the 
dissolution  of  the  International.  Jealousy  of  each  other 
seems  never  to  be  absent  among  Socialist  leaders,  and 
it  existed  in  a  marked  degree  between  Bakounin  and 
Marx,  and  between  the  latter  and  the  Lassalleans.  Las- 
salle  was  killed  the  year  the  International  was  organized, 
in  a  duel  that  he  forced  upon  his  successful  rival  for 
a  lady's  hand.  His  followers,  though  otherwise  Marxian 
in  their  beliefs,  advocated  political  action,  which  Marx 
opposed.  Marx's  adversaries  charged  that  this  opposi- 
tion on  his  part  was  due  to  his  being  a  refugee,  which 
prevented  him  from  acting  as  leader  in  any  movement 
not  frankly  revolutionary.  Their  differences  were  com- 
promised at  the  Congress  of  Basle,  partly,  it  seems,  on 
account  of  the  defection  of  Bakounin  as  a  Marxian  par- 
tisan, and  to  defeat  his  insurgency  which  threatened  to 
capture  the  International.  Bakounin  had  been  an  active 
revolutionist.  He  was  sentenced  to  death  for  his  part 
in  the  Saxon  revolt  of  1849,  but  escaped  the  extreme 
penalty  because  of  a  dispute  among  the  Powers  as  to 
their  priority  of  right  to  execute  him.  He  was  later 
banished  to  Siberia,  but  escaped.  Returning  to  Europe, 
he  joined  the  International  and,  becoming  dissatisfied 
with  Marx's  continued  leadership,  organized  the  Inter- 
national Alliance  of  Socialists.  This  division,  together 
with  the  collapse  of  the  Commune,  caused  the  dissolution 
of  the  Marxian  International.  It  did  not  meet  after 
1873.  The  Bakounin  International  disappeared  about  the 
same  time. 


THE  MOVEMENT  191 

For  something  like  a  decade  from  this  date,  the  inter- 
national movement  had  no  central  organization.  That  it 
was  not  dormant,  however,  appears  from  the  number  of 
Socalist  parties  and  revolutionary  societies  formed  during 
that  period,  especially  in  Germany,  Russia,  and  the 
United  States.  In  Germany,  these  multiplied  so  rapidly 
that  within  a  few  years  it  was  thought  by  their  leaders 
that,  if  the  ruling  Emperor  were  removed,  they  could 
overthrow  the  government.  Accordingly,  in  1878,  there 
was  an  attempt  made  to  assassinate  Emperor  William, 
but  it  was  unsuccessful.  This  was  the  occasion  for  the 
attack  by  Bismarck  on  the  Socialists,  in  which  he  was 
finally  compelled  to  court  favor  with  the  Center-Party  to 
prevent  defeat. 

In  Russia,  the  assassins  were  more  successful.  The 
Socialists,  Morris  and  Bax,  say  that  "  the  slaying  of  the 
Czar,  in  March,  1881,  with  the  tragic  scenes  that  fol- 
lowed it,  was  the  most  dramatic  event  that  the  Russian 
movement  has  given  to  the  world.  The  courage  [ !] 
and  devotion  [ !]  that  went  to  the  accomplishment  of  this 
lightning-stroke,  had  great  effect  on  progressively- 
minded  [ !]  persons."  It  was  largely  the  vigor  and  dis- 
patch with  which  the  government  put  an  end  to  these 
"  tragic  scenes  "  that  caused  Tolstoi  to  advance  his  curious 
doctrine  of  "  Non-interference." 

In  the  United  States,  though  there  were  no  Socialist 
assassinations  of  high  officials  during  this  period,  there 
were  strikes  and  riots  a-plenty,  instigated  by  them,  and 
accompanied  by  characteristic  lawlessness  and  crime. 
The  assassination  of  Garfield  has  been  charged  to  Social- 
ist teaching,  but  this  is  not  warranted.  Guiteau  was 
maddened  by  disappointment  at  being  denied  a  diplomatic 


192  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

post  at  Marseilles,  and  his  act  was  due  to  a  fit  of  frenzy. 
It  is  perhaps  truer  to  say  that  Guiteau's  act  flowed  from 
a  state  of  mind  that  harbors  Socialist  sentiment,  which 
broods  over  disappointment  with  ever-lowering  gloomi- 
ness and  finally  despairs  and  becomes  lost  in  violent 
passion.  But  Socialist  teaching  is  responsible  for  the 
memorable  Tompkins  Square  riot  that  occurred  in  New 
York  during  the  seventies ;  and  for  similar  outbreaks  oc- 
curring in  Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  and  other  large  cities. 
President  Hayes  was  compelled  to  send  out  the  Federal 
troops  on  account  of  Socialist  violence,  and  West  Vir- 
ginia was  placed  under  martial  law.  The  excitement  ex- 
tended into  the  West.  At  St.  Louis,  a  self-constituted 
Socialist  junta  undertook  to  establish  a  new  city  govern- 
ment and  proceeded  to  make  laws  in  violation  of  consti- 
tutional limitations  and  to  divide  and  distribute  property 
in  disregard  of  pre-existing  right. 

Such,  in  brief,  was  the  state  of  Socialism  when  John 
Most  formed  the  second  International  at  New  York,  in 
1883.  Most  had  served  two  terms  of  imprisonment  on 
the  Continent  and  one  in  England  before  he  came  to  the 
United  States.  Upon  his  arrival  in  New  York  he  estab- 
lished a  newspaper,  the  Freiheit  (Freedom),  and  at  once 
set  about  forming  the  new  International,  using  as  a  nu- 
cleus for  this  purpose  the  Revolutionary  Socialist  Labor 
Party,  which  was  then  making  war  on  what  was  termed 
"the  spineless  attitude"  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party. 
The  new  International  was  short-lived.  After  a  few 
meetings  it  organized  the  notorious  Chicago  demonstra- 
tions that  ended  in  the  bomb  riot  of  Haymarket  Square. 
As  a  sequel  to  the  riot,  four  of  the  leaders  of  the  Inter- 
national were  hanged  for  murder.  This  practically  ter- 


THE  MOVEMENT  193 

minated  the  existence  of  the  organization,  and  during  the 
next  few  years  the  international  movement  was  again 
without  a  recognized  central  body. 

In  1889,  a  third  International  was  organized  at  Paris. 
This  organization  still  exists.  Its  central  bureau  is  at 
Brussels.  There  have  been  nine  International  Conven- 
tions (Congresses)  since  the  organization  started.  Each 
country  where  Socialism  is  seriously  agitated,  is  repre- 
sented in  these  Congresses,  and  each  has  two  standing 
representatives  known  as  Secretaries,  who  compose  the 
permanent  body  of  the  organization,  which  is  officially 
called  The  International  Congress  of  the  World. 

III.    NATIONAL  PARTIES 

It  is  clearly  beyond  the  limits  assigned  to  this  study 
to  review  the  development  of  the  various  Socialist  par- 
ties in  each  country.  We  must  content  ourselves  with 
a  rapid  sketch  of  their  growth  as  it  has  been  in  Ger- 
many, England,  and  the  United  States.  Germany  is  the 
birth-place  of  the  Socialist  movement,  and  as  such  de- 
serves to  be  considered  in  the  most  limited  sketch  of  the 
movement's  history.  The  Socialist  idea  originated  in 
England,  and  this  entitles  her  to  a  place  in  the  most 
cursory  treatment  of  the  movement.  The  United  States 
comes  in  for  special  mention  for  our  own  sake. 

i.  Germany. 

Lassalle,  who  founded  the  Workingmen's  Party  in 
1862,  was  a  man  of  popular  attainments.  He  had  a 
smatter  of  learning,  indomitable  energy,  and  unflagging 
zeal,  and  his  party  grew  rapidly  for  a  few  years.  At 
his  death,  in  1864,  however,  its  numbers  had  considerably 


194  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

diminished  and  that  tragic  event  served  to  hasten  its  de- 
cay. At  the  Congress  of  Eisenach,  1869,  when  Marx 
compromised  with  the  Lassalleans,  the  Socialist  Party 
was  formed.  Notwithstanding  it  was  under  the  leader- 
ship of  the  two  Marxian  partisans  of  greatest  note  at  the 
time,  Bebel  and  Liebknecht,  this  party  excited  no  en- 
thusiasm. The  compromise  that  gave  it  birth  was  not 
final,  as  compromises  usually  are  not.  The  sympathis- 
ers of  Marx  continued  to  decry  all  measures  short  of 
revolutionary  uprisings;  the  followers  of  Lassalle's  old 
policies  continued  to  advocate  political  action.  During 
the  war  with  France  the  Lassalleans  formed  the  Demo- 
cratic Party,  confessedly  a  misnomer,  but  it  was  little 
more  than  a  nominal  organization.  The  war,  followed 
by  the  Paris  Commune,  deadened  the  sympathies  for  So- 
cialism of  all  who  were  not  closely  affiliated  with  one 
of  these  parties,  and  the  unprecedented  prosperity,  ac- 
companied by  low  taxes,  great  national  enterprise,  and 
state  initiative  in  beneficent  projects, —  all  due  to  the 
amazing  rapidity  with  which  France  paid  the  war  in- 
demnity,—  went  a  long  way  to  dispel  the  enthusiasm  of 
the  Socialists  themselves. 

In  1875,  when  the  famous  Gotha  Program,  which 
Marx  had  opposed  and  finally  caused  to  be  revised,  was 
adopted,  a  fusion  of  all  Socialist  factions  was  effected, 
and  the  Social  Democratic  Party  was  formed.  The  re- 
action from  the  "  Five  Milliard  Boom  "  began  about  this 
time,  and  general  depression  set  in.  Socialist  enthusiasm 
grew  accordingly.  Discontent  became  widespread,  and 
the  newly  formed  party  of  the  Socialists  captured  one 
seat  after  another  in  the  Reichstag.  In  May,  1878,  and 
again  in  June,  attempts  were  made  to  assassinate  the 


THE  MOVEMENT  195 

Emperor.  They  were  both  unsuccessful,  but  like  light- 
ning flashes  they  illumined  the  depths  towards  which 
the  Socialists  were  trying  to  drive  the  German  people. 
In  October,  the  Reichstag  passed  a  law  suppressing  the 
Socialist  party  and  its  propaganda  for  a  term  of  three 
years.  This  term  was  extended  from  time  to  time  until 
1890,  when  the  law  was  repealed. 

In  the  meantime,  the  Socialists  had  carried  on  their 
agitation  secretly,  which  explains  how  they  won  thirty 
odd  seats  in  the  Reichstag  at  the  next  election.  In  the 
next  election  they  increased  the  number  ten,  and  in  the 
next  ten  more,  and  they  have  since  continued  to  hold 
the  balance  of  power  in  the  august  assembly  of  the  Em- 
pire. 

The  working  principles  of  German  Socialists  are  set 
out  in  the  Erfurt  Program,  adopted  in  1891.  This 
Program  is  a  revision  of  the  Gotha  Program  in  the  par- 
ticulars in  which  Marx  objected  to  the  latter.  It  em- 
bodies the  basic  principles  of  the  Manifesto,  and  its 
adoption  was  a  great  personal  victory  for  Marx  and 
finally  terminated  the  old  dispute  between  him  and  the 
Lassalleans,  the  latter  passing  into  oblivion  from  this 
date.  At  the  same  time,  the  Erfurt  Congress  expelled 
Werner,  Wildberger,  and  their  followers,  termed 
"  Young  Socialists,"  who  advocated  revolutionary  demon- 
stration in  preference  to  political  action  or  "  parliament- 
ing  "  as  a  tactic.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that,  though  this 
had  been  Marx's  earlier  view,  before  the  Paris  Commune 
and  similar  uprisings  had  cost  the  advocates  of  violence 
the  sympathy  of  all  worthy  citizens,  he  now  procured  the 
expulsion  of  those  holding  it,  while  at  the  same  time  he 
insisted  on  destroying  the  Lassalleans  and  repudiating 


196  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

their  Gotha  Program  for  tacitly  condemning  his  earlier 
view. 

It  is  said  by  the  German  historian,  Headlam,  that  "  all 
attempts  to  win  the  workingmen  from  the  doctrinaire 
Socialists  failed.  They  continued  to  look  on  the  whole 
machinery  of  government,  Emperor  and  army,  Church 
and  law,  as  their  natural  enemies."  And  yet,  the  en- 
thusiastic "  Young  Socialists,"  having  been  expelled,  it 
seems,  as  Headlam  says  further,  that  "  which  began  as 
a  revolutionary  movement,  became  a  dogmatic  and  aca- 
demic school  of  thought ;  it  seemed  as  if  the  orthodox 
interpretation  of  Marx's  doctrines  was  of  more  impor- 
tance than  an  improvement  in  the  condition  of  the  work- 
ingmen." 

Hardly  had  these  divisions  been  healed  when  another 
one  occurred.  This  was  between  the  orthodox  Marx- 
ians and  the  so-called  Revisionists,  at  first  led  by  Voll- 
mar  and  later  by  Bernstein.  Vollmar  opposed  revolu- 
tionary impetuosity.  He  aimed  to  work  on  conditions  in 
present  society  and  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  work- 
ingmen by  such  reforms  as  were  possible  under  existing 
circumstances.  He  was  opposed  in  the  most  vigorous 
terms  by  Marx,  Bebel,  Liebknecht,  Kautsky,  and  others, 
who  contemptuously  called  his  teaching  "  State  Social- 
ism." At  the  Berlin  convention,  1892,  it  was  resolved: 
"  Social  Democracy  is  essentially  revolutionary ;  State 
Socialism  is  conservative.  Social  Democracy  and  State 
Socialism  are  irreconcilable  opposites."  Notwithstand- 
ing this  defeat  of  Vollmar  and  the  "  State  Socialists," 
they  continued  to  urge  their  teachings,  and  seven  years 
later,  at  the  convention  of  Hanover,  under  the  leadership 
of  the  brilliant  and  indefatigable  propagandist,  Bernstein, 


THE  MOVEMENT  197 

they  procured  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution: 
"  Every  kind  of  organization  among  workingmen  for  the 
safeguarding  and  promoting  of  their  interest  is  consid- 
ered as  a  proper  means  of  educating  the  laboring  classes 
in  the  management  of  their  own  affairs."  Marx  was 
dead  then.  His  followers  succeeded  in  partially  cover- 
ing their  defeat  by  procuring  the  following  adopted: 
"  There  is  no  reason  for  our  party  to  change  its  prin- 
ciples or  to  adopt  different  tactics,  or  a  different  name." 
This  compromise  between  the  Marxists  and  the  Bern- 
steinists  was  later  construed  by  each  side  to  be  a  vic- 
tory for  itself.  The  former  insisted  that  the  last  reso- 
lution, which  the  Bernsteinists  supported,  implied  an 
abandonment  of  the  Revisionist  policy,  while  the  latter 
claimed  that  the  first  resolution,  which  the  Marxists  sup- 
ported, showed  a  definite  change  of  the  orthodox  front. 
At  the  Liibeck  convention,  1901,  Bebel  moved  to  con- 
demn the  construction  that  Bernstein  stood  on,  and 
the  Revisionists  moved  to  condemn  the  construction  of  the 
Marxists.  The  former  motion  prevailed  by  nearly  ten  to 
one.  Since  that  time,  the  Social  Democratic  Party  of 
Germany,  led  by  orthodox  Marxists,  has  been  practically 
the  only  Socialist  party  in  Germany.  While  it  continues 
to  hold  the  balance  of  power  in  the  Reichstag,  it  adheres 
to  the  orthodox  interpretation  of  the  Marxian  teachings 
and  steadfastly  opposes  all  measures  that  do  not  look  to 
the  destruction  of  the  whole  social  edifice.  Germany  was 
the  first  country  to  adopt  workingmen's  insurance  and 
compensation  laws  and  to  provide  old-age  pensions. 
These  were  initiated  while  the  Socialists  were  under  Bis- 
marck's political  ban.  After  the  ban  was  removed,  sim- 
ilar provisions  to  secure  social  justice  were  proposed, 


198  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

such  as  those  against  child-labor  and  female  labor  in 
certain  industries  and  for  fixing  a  shorter  work-day  and 
a  minimum  wage.  These  provisions  have  met  with  uni- 
form opposition  from  Socialists.  Socialists  consistently 
oppose  all  such  measures.  They  move  on  the  theory  that 
the  best  means  of  hastening  the  advent  of  Socialism  is 
to  increase  the  suffering  and  misery  of  the  working 
classes,  so  that  they  will  be  the  sooner  roused  to  class- 
consciousness  and  the  more  easily  excited  to  revolution- 
ary activity.  The  growing  prosperity  of  the  German 
people  constantly  renders  it  more  difficult  for  the  Social- 
ists to  retain  their  numbers.  The  elections  of  late  years 
have  shown  a  marked  falling  off  among  them.  But  they 
are  still  a  power  seriously  to  be  reckoned  with  in  many 
portions  of  the  Empire.  A  change  in  tactics  may  render 
them  more  formidable.  A  change  in  conditions  may  ob- 
scure them  for  a  time.*  A  fundamental  change  in  their 
teachings  is  the  only  thing  that  will  make  them  less  of  a 
menace  to  society  and  civilization. 
2.  England. 

Though  the  Socialist  Idea  originated  in  England,  if 
not  with  Bacon  and  Harrington,  then  with  Godwin, 
Thompson,  and  Hall,  and  though  the  Socialist  movement 
had  spread  to  this  country  as  early  as  the  second  de- 
cade of  the  nineteenth  century,  when  the  Luddites  car- 
ried on  their  destructive  campaign  against  the  introduc- 
tion of  machinery,  Socialist  parties  did  not  appear  here 
until  about  1880,  and  then  they  principally  existed  in 
the  form  of  "  Clubs."  In  1881,  the  various  clubs  of 

*  Since  writing  the  above,  the  great  war  now  (1915)  being 
waged  in  Europe  was  begun,  and  all  Socialist  agitation  seems  to 
be  suspended. —  Author. 


THE  MOVEMENT  199 

London  professing  radical  doctrines  organized  under  the 
name  of  the  Democratic  Federation.  They  had  hardly 
federated  when  dissensions  arose  among  them,  and 
these  increased  until  1883,  when  the  Democratic  Fed- 
eration broke  up  and  the  Social  Federation  was  formed. 
Differences  caused  a  schism  in  this  body  also,  and  within 
a  year  a  rival  body,  the  Socialist  League,  was  formed. 
Two  years  later  occurred  the  notorious  "  West-end " 
riots.  Four  members  of  the  Federation  were  condemned 
for  having  incited  these,  and  that  organization  speedily 
dissolved.  In  1890,  dissensions  arose  in  the  League,  and 
in  consequence  it,  also,  was  dissolved. 

About  this  time  the  Fabian  Society  took  form  as  a 
Socialist  body.  Then  the  Socialist  Society  was  organ- 
ized. Various  other  organizations,  such  as  the  Bristol 
Socialists,  the  Hammerstein  Socialists,  and  the  Socialist 
parties  of  Aberdeen  and  Glasgow,  rapidly  came  into  ex- 
istence and  as  rapidly  passed  away.  So  little  of  a  perma- 
nent character  was  accomplished  up  to  this  time,  that 
Engels,  in  1895,  was  provoked  to  remark  that  he  did 
not  believe  English  workingmen  had  any  desire  to  better 
their  condition  except  for  the  present  generation.  And 
up  to  1900,  among  seven  hundred  members  of  Parlia- 
ment, the  nearest  approach  to  a  Socialist  was  Keir  Har- 
die,  the  labor  leader. 

It  is  difficult  to  classify  Hardie  with  reference  to  So- 
cialism. Though  avowing  himself  a  Socialist,  and 
though  he  made  a  tour  of  the  United  States  in  the  inter- 
ests of  Socialism  here,  he  is  not  an  orthodox  Marxist, 
not  a  revolutionist,  and  though  perhaps  radical  in  some 
particulars,  he  does  not  seek  to  overthrow  society  or  to 
destroy  capitalism,  but  only  by  lawful  means  to  advance 


200  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

to  the  extreme  the  interests  of  the  working  classes.  The 
Labor  Party  of  England,  therefore,  of  which  Hardie  *  is 
the  founder,  teacher,  and  leading  spirit,  cannot  be  classed 
as  strictly  a  Socialist  party,  notwithstanding  it  has  a  large 
Socialist  membership.  Nor  can  we  so  class  the  Fabian 
Society,  which  during  the  present  century  has  been  the 
only  other  extensive  organization  in  England  that  is 
largely  composed  of  Socialists,  for  it  is  not  a  true  ex- 
pression of  the  Scientific  Socialist  movement.  This  is 
a  middle-class  party.  It  is  engaged  principally  in  propa- 
ganda, not  politics,  and  its  main  object  is  to  force  exist- 
ing political  parties  to  accede  to  certain  "  immediate " 
Socialist  demands,  while  it  educates  the  middle  classes, 
not  the  proletariat,  to  "  ultimate  "  Socialist  principles. 

While  the  Labor  Party  and  the  Fabian  Society  are  the 
strongest  organizations  that  English  Socialists  have  ever 
been  affiliated  with,  and  during  the  last  two  decades  prac- 
tically the  only  ones  of  importance,  there  are  other  or- 
ganizations that  bear  mention,  such  as  the  Christian  So- 
cialists, founded  by  Kingsley;  the  State  Socialists, 
headed  by  Wells;  the  Labor  Socialists,  for  whom  Mac- 
Donald  is  a  chief  spokesman ;  the  Revolutionary  Social- 
itsts,  among  whom  Blatchford  is  a  leader;  the  Free-Love 
Socialists,  whose  immoral  teachings  are  seen  in  the  writ- 
ings of  Shaw  and  Carpenter. 

It  would  be  too  tedious  to  go  into  the  history  of  these 
and  other  Socialist  schools,  some  of  which  no  longer  ex- 
ist in  England,  and  none  of  which  perhaps  ever  existed 
outside  of  her  principal  cities.  That  they  existed  at  all 
is  doubtless  due  to  the  failure  of  the  Labor  Party  and 

*  Since  going  to  press  Mr.  Hardie  died,  September  26,  1915. — 
Ed. 


THE  MOVEMENT  201 

the  Fabian  Society  to  set  forth  the  fundamental  tenets 
of  Scientific  Socialism.  But  while  on  that  account  these 
organizations  have  failed  to  satisfy  all  schools,  by  the 
same  token  they  have  drawn  into  their  ranks  great  num- 
bers who  otherwise  probably  would  not  be  there. 

The  truth  is,  there  is  not  much  Socialism  in  England, 
especially  not  much  of  a  Socialist  movement.  The 
English  temperament  does  not  encourage  the  growth  of 
Socialist  sentiment,  and,  lacking  a  virile  sentiment,  the 
movement  does  not  spread.  For  centuries,  the  English 
have  been  noted  for  their  adherence  to  the  forms  of 
law,  religion,  property  rights,  and  the  family,  though 
they  doubtless  regard  the  substance  of  these  no  more  than 
other  peoples.  This  very  conventionalism,  saying  it  is 
no  more  than  conventionalism,  is  a  protection  and  a  safe- 
guard against  radical  teaching  and  revolutionary  move- 
ments. Hence,  Scientific  Socialism,  which  is  essentially 
both  radical  and  revolutionary,  has  never  made  much 
headway  in  England.  In  France,  where  the  tempera- 
ment of  the  pople  is  quick  and  impulsive,  the  govern- 
ment has  nearly  collapsed  time  and  again  and  the  whole 
social  edifice  has  been  more  than  once  imperilled  by 
Socialism.  The  reason  is  plain:  the  Socialist  sentiment 
is  in  a  constant  state  of  effervescence,  and  this  makes 
for  the  growth  of  the  movement.  In  Germany,  although 
the  temperament  of  the  people  is  more  staid,  there  is 
a  complete  disregard  of  conventions  as  such.  Hence, 
the  movement  has  grown  in  Germany,  but  it  has  not 
produced  results.  The  government  is  constantly  threat- 
ened by  its  presence,  but  never  endangered.  Not  being 
jealous  of  their  institutions,  as  are  the  English,  merely 
because  "  the  memory  of  man  runneth  not  to  the  con- 


202  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

trary,"  the  Germans  approach  the  study  of  Socialism 
with  an  open  mind.  But  they  are  not  carried  away  by 
the  impulse  prompted  by  its  gilded  proposals.  These  pro- 
posals are  carefully  examined;  and  they  are  rejected  by 
all  who  have  not  already  fallen  into  error  through  per- 
verted teachings,  when,  misled  by  preconceived  ideas  of 
being,  truth,  God,  law,  right,  justice,  good,  they  sub- 
scribe to  Socialism.  These  have  their  unthinking  follow- 
ers ;  they  appeal  to  the  discontented  and  the  lawless,  and 
altogether  they  muster  three  or  four  out  of  sixty  millions. 
In  consequence,  though  Germany  has  a  Socialist  move- 
ment, it  seems  to  be  a  kind  of  fixed  movement,  having 
reached  its  limits,  and  in  many  years  it  has  varied  but 
little  in  character  or  extent.  The  English,  on  the  other 
hand,  do  not  approach  Socialism  with  an  open  mind. 
The  mere  fact  that  it  is  arrayed  against  their  time-hon- 
ored institutions,  prejudices  them  against  it  at  the  out- 
set, and  as  a  result  of  this  attitude  of  mind,  there  has  not 
been  an  English  Socialist  movement  to  chronicle. 

Here,  then,  we  have  three  distinct  national  types,  and 
as  many  different  results,  showing  in  the  Socialist  move- 
ment. With  the  French  it  has  carried  far,  but  it  has  not 
been  a  constant  quantity.  Now  it  has  overthrown  the 
government  and  brought  society  so  near  to  destruction 
that  the  Powers  alone  could  save  it,  and  now  it  has  fallen 
into  oblivion,  only  to  spring  forth  again  when  famine, 
drouth,  pestilence  or  war  invited  it  to  prey  upon  a 
stricken  people.  With  the  Germans,  it  has  been  more 
constant,  but  it  has  not  carried  far.  A  few  assassina- 
tions, a  few  riots,  a  world  of  propaganda  and  enough 
seats  in  the  Reichstag  to  constitute  the  balance  of  power, 
but  with  no  institution,  no  law,  and  no  State  policy  to 


THE  MOVEMENT  203 

its  credit, —  such  is  the  result  of  the  German  movement. 
The  results  of  the  English  movement  are  so  negligible 
they  do  not  show  where  there  has  been  a  movement. 
Though  the  Socialist  idea  originated  with  them,  the 
English  did  not  entertain  it.  They  scarcely  tolerated  it. 
The  idea  was  more  tolerant  to  the  Germans.  Its  ablest 
exponents  are  found  among  them.  Marx,  Engels,  Dietz- 
gen,  Liebknecht,  Kautsky,  Bebel  produced  a  Socialist  lit- 
erature that  caused  discontent,  the  starting  point  of  So- 
cialist sentiment.  But  the  fully  developed  sentiment  is 
too  impetuous,  too  violent  for  the  stolid  Germans. 
They  look  before  they  leap,  and  they  leap  by  inches.  If 
conventionalism  saved  the  English  from  Socialism,  com- 
mon sense  saved  the  Germans.  In  France,  the  Idea  and 
the  Sentiment  were  both  fully  developed,  and  when  they 
were  combined,  the  movement  sprang  forth  like  a  mad 
giant  bent  on  destruction.  Society  was  ill;  it  was  dis- 
eased with  infidelity,  irreligion,  immorality,  injustice, — 
sick  to  death  with  godlessness  and  all  the  ills  that  must 
attend  this  sad  condition  in  a  society ;  then  came  famine, 
drouth  and  war,  and  Society  was  prostrate  when  the 
giant  arose.  The  intervening  Powers  saved  France,  as 
they  alone  can  ever  save  the  nation  that  tolerates  and  en- 
courages the  Idea  and  the  Sentiment  of  Socialism  while 
it  suffers  its  institutions  to  grow  diseased  with  godlessness 
and  its  attendant  ills. 
3.  United  States. 

In  this  country,  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury claims  attention  as  the  experimental  stage  of  So- 
cialism. Several  hundred  Socialist  communities  were  es- 
tablished in  the  various  States  during  this  time.  Some 
were  conducted  on  the  "  Phalanx  "  idea  of  Fourier,  some 


204  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

on  the  plan  of  Saint-Simon,  some  were  followers  of 
Cabet,  some  of  Owen,  some  of  Rapp.  All  failed.  The 
Socialist  historians,  Kirkup,  Noyes,  Waltershausen,  Hill- 
quit,  Ely,  assign  various  causes  for  their  failure,  but  try 
to  acquit  Socialism,  especially  Scientific  Socialism,  of 
all  blame.  It  is  not  our  purpose  here  to  do  more  than 
note  the  fact  of  their  failure  and  to  separate  this  period 
of  Socialist  history  from  that  which  followed. 

The  revolutionary  phase  of  Socialism  in  America  be- 
gins with  the  coming  of  Weitling  to  the  United  States, 
immediately  after  the  European  revolutions  of  1848. 
Having  taken  an  active  part  in  those  revolutions,  Weitling 
keenly  realized  that  it  would  be  healthier  for  him  in 
this  country  than  at  home,  as  did  many  others,  who  came 
over  at  the  same  time.  This  man  is  mentioned  by  Hill- 
quit  as  "  the  connecting  link  between  Utopian  and  Scien- 
tific Socialism  in  the  United  States."  In  1850,  he 
formed  the  Central  Committee  of  United  Trades,  which 
was  intended  to  unite  the  Icarians  with  the  Farmers'  and 
Mechanics'  Protective  Association,  the  latter  of  which 
had  been  organized  for  the  establishment  of  an  Exchange 
Bank  similar  to  Owen's  experimental  Bank  of  Labor,  in 
which  labor  certificates  were  substituted  for  money, 
which,  like  the  rest  of  Owen's  schemes,  had  failed.  The 
General  Workmen's  League,  which  had  previously  estab- 
lished "  Communia,"  in  Iowa,  was  later  brought  into  this 
scheme  of  unification  instead  of  the  Icarians.  The  So- 
cialistic Gymnastic  Unions,  a  tactical  organization  formed 
to  make  use  of  the  physical  culture  enthusiasm  then  dis- 
played in  both  Europe  and  America,  were  also  a  factor  in 
this  unification  plan. 

The    organization    was    finally   perfected    during   the 


THE  MOVEMENT  205 

financial  depression  of  the  fifties,  under  the  name, 
National  Labor  Union.  In  the  meantime,  the  Free  Soil 
Party,  so  well  known  in  the  political  history  of  this 
period,  had  become  rather  influential,  if  not  as  an  or- 
ganization, at  least  as  a  propaganda,  and  the  Socialist 
federation  tactfully  adopted  as  its  own  a  number  of  the 
Free  Soilers'  demands. 

The  National  Reform  Party,  later  the  Labor  Reform 
Party,  was  organized  through  the  skillful  manipulation 
of  the  National  Labor  Union  by  the  celebrated  Wm. 
Sylvis,  who  from  the  middle  of  the  fifties  until  his  death, 
in  1869,  was  the  leading  spirit  in  the  Socialist  movement. 
The  movement  was  on  a  sharp  decline  before  his  death, 
and  that  event  precipitated  the  dissolution  of  the  National 
Reform  Party,  which  left  the  movement  almost  dead. 
Strenuous  effort  was  made  to  revive  it  by  Jessup,  who 
sought  to  affiliate  the  Reform  Party  with  the  Inter- 
national, then  showing  signs  of  permanency.  Jessup  also 
procured  the  adoption  of  certain  "  Farmer  Resolutions  " 
with  a  view  of  filling  the  depleted  ranks  from  men  of 
the  soil.  But  his  efforts  came  to  naught,  and  from  the 
death  of  Sylvis  little  is  heard  of  the  Socialist  parties  that 
had  previously  been  formed. 

From  this  time  until  after  the  serious  financial  crisis 
of  1873,  there  was  quiet  in  Socialist  circles.  The  brutal 
excesses  of  the  Paris  Commune  embarrassed  their 
"  Comrades  "  of  this  country.  Moreover,  from  the  close 
of  the  War  Between  the  States,  an  unusual  wave  of  pros- 
perity visited  America  and  did  not  break  until  the  panic 
of  1873.  This  caused  a  further  decline  of  Socialism. 
In  his  history  of  Socialism,  Hillquit  pertinently  remarks 
that  "  when  a  new  wave  of  prosperity  would  strike  the 


206  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

country,  the  spirit  of  discontent  would  subside  and  the 
Socialist  votes  would  disappear." 

The  panic  of  1873,  perhaps  the  most  serious  in  the 
financial  history  of  America,  was  precipitated  by  the  col- 
lapse of  the  Northern  Pacific.  The  five  years  preceding 
this  failure  had  been  years  of  remarkable  activity  in  rail- 
road circles  throughout  the  country,  and  this  activity  had 
seriously  inflated  values  in  many  lines  of  industry,  espe- 
cially steel  and  iron.  It  has  been  estimated  that  within 
sixty  days  from  the  time  of  this  failure,  three  million 
families  had  been  reduced  to  want  throughout  the  coun- 
try. Demonstrations  and  riots  followed,  in  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  West  Virginia,  Illinois,  Mis- 
souri. The  state  militia  was  routed,  Federal  troops 
were  called  out  and  martial  law  was  proclaimed.  ''  The 
Socialists,"  says  Hillquit,  "  did  not  neglect  this  excellent 
opportunity  to  propagate  their  theories  among  the  excited 
masses." 

The  Social  Democratic  Party  of  North  America  was 
formed  in  1874.  From  a  division  arising  at  its  first  meet- 
ing, the  Socialist  Workingmen's  Party  arose.  But 
neither  of  these  parties  was  acceptable  to  all  factions. 
One  faction  formed  the  Labor  Party  in  Illinois,  another 
formed  the  Socio-Political  Union  in  Ohio,  and  when 
these  two  endeavored  to  unite,  a  newly  developed  fac- 
tion formed  the  Workingmen's  Party  of  the  United 
States.  In  1876,  most  of  these  factions  came  together 
in  the  American  Federation  of  Workingmen's  Associa- 
tions, which  later  became  the  Socialist  Party  of  North 
America. 

By  this  time  confidence  had  been  fully  restored  in 
the  financial  world  and  a  new  era  of  prosperity  had  set 


THE  MOVEMENT  207 

in.  In  consequence,  Socialist  enthusiasm  began  to  de- 
cline with  its  usual  custom.  Hillquit  says  of  Socialism 
during  this  period :  "  The  struggles  of  the  party  grew 
harder  and  harder:  the  social  contentment  of  the  masses 
seemed  impregnable ;  no  new  converts  were  made  and  the 
old  members  grew  disheartened  and  dropped  out  in  large 
numbers." 

In  1883,  John  Most  formed  the  International  Work- 
ing-peoples Association  at  New  York.  His  paper,  the 
Freiheit,  carried  on  a  discussion  with  the  Official  Bulle- 
tin of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party,  edited  by  Secretary  Van 
Patten.  Most's  object  was  to  convince  Socialists  of  the 
futility  of  any  political  action  not  purely  revolutionary 
and  of  any  organization  not  international.  He  succeeded 
so  well  that  Van  Patten,  seeing  the  support  of  his  own 
party  failing  him,  resigned  in  disgust.  He  joined  the 
International,  became  one  of  its  leaders,  and  was  among 
the  four  hanged  for  inciting  the  Haymarket  Square  riots. 
Inciting  riots  was  one  of  the  policies  of  Most's  Inter- 
national, but  in  this  case  it  proved  a  fatal  expedient  and 
caused  the  organization  to  lose  its  most  capable  lead- 
ers. Its  dissolution  quickly  followed. 

The  spirit  of  the  Socialist  Labor  Party  was  revived 
when  its  rival  became  inactive.  It  induced  Liebknecht 
to  come  from  Europe  and  canvass  this  country  in  order 
to  counteract  the  effects  of  the  International's  policy. 
No  more  fitting  person  could  have  been  selected  for 
pouring  oil  upon  angry  waters.  His  work  on  Tactics 
is  ample  evidence  of  his  unprincipled  view  that  the  suc- 
cess of  the  party  "  is  our  only  law,  our  only  rule ;  the 
essential  thing  is  that  Socialism  shall  triumph ;  the  non- 
essential  is  HOW."  Hence,  though  he  had  consistently 


208  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

advocated  revolutionary  action  in  Europe,  Liebknecht 
appeared  as  an  ardent  advocate  of  political  action  in  this 
country  and  denounced  the  Internationalists  for  doing 
what  for  many  years,  in  the  face  of  opposition  from  the 
Lassalleans,  he  himself  had  been  advising. 

Liebknecht  was  followed  in  his  tour  by  Eleanor  Marx 
and  Edward  Aveling.  She  was  a  daughter  of  Marx,  he 
was  an  unsuccessful  physician  of  London,  who  had 
abandoned  his  wife  and  children  to  live  with  this  woman 
and  preach  Socialism.  Marx  himself  did  not  object  to 
this  relation,  but  on  the  contrary  approved  it  and  ex- 
pressed pride  in  his  left-handed  son-in-law.  Sometime 
after  Marx's  death  Aveling  tired  of  Eleanor  and  aban- 
doned her.  She  committed  suicide.  Notwithstanding 
the  relation  of  the  two  was  well  known  at  the  time  they 
were  touring  America,  and  to  all  appearances  was  main- 
tained while  they  were  here,  they  were  received  by  the 
Socialists  with  great  enthusiasm,  and  Leagues  and  Asso- 
ciations and  Societies  of  Socialists  rapidly  multiplied  as 
a  consequence. 

The  slight  depression  occasioned  by  the  presidential 
elections  of  1888,  made  the  time  ripe  for  this  Socialist 
reaction.  The  Populist  Party  and  the  Farmers'  Alliance 
had  been  organized  to  continue  the  effort  previously 
undertaken  by  the  Greenback  and  Labor  parties,  to  break 
into  the  ranks  of  the  old-line  parties,  and  Socialists 
profited  by  their  propaganda.  The  Henry  George  move- 
ment had  also  appeared,  and  it  received  the  support  of 
the  Socialists.  The  Knights  of  Labor,  for  long  a  se- 
cret organization,  had  declared  itself,  and  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  had  been  formed,  and  Socialists 
tried  to  affiliate  with  these,  "  every  convention,"  as  Hill- 


THE  MOVEMENT  209 

quit  says,  "  having  a  larger  or  smaller  number  of  agi- 
tators who  endeavored  to  utilize  the  occasion  for  the 
propagation  of  their  theories."  These  affiliative  tactics 
were  the  result  of  Liebknecht's  visit;  but  they  came  to 
naught.  The  American  Federation  was  an  unalloyed 
labor  organization,  and  both  it  and  the  Knights  of  Labor 
came  to  be  in  the  position  of  daggers  drawn  with  Social- 
ists and  Socialism.  Then  the  worm  turned  and  tried  to 
sting.  From  1895  to  1899,  De  Leon,  editor  of  The  Peo- 
ple, and  Vogt,  editor  of  the  Vorw'drts,  the  two  most  in- 
fluential Socialist  papers,  carried  on  a  systematic  war- 
fare against  "pure  and  simple  labor-unions,  Populists, 
Nationalists,  and  other  fakirs." 

In  1892,  for  the  first  time,  the  Socialists  offered  a 
candidate  for  President.  Prior  to  this  time  they  had 
consistently  demanded  the  abolition  of  that  office,  but 
this  year  saw  the  demand  omitted  from  their  platform. 
The  financial  depression  of  1893  did  not  swell  the  ranks 
of  the  party,  as  panics  usually  do,  doubtless  on  account 
of  the  many  other  parties  to  which  the  discontented  ele- 
ments of  the  masses  could  turn.  But  it  brought  about  a 
new  leader  among  Socialists.  This  was  Eugene  V.  Debs, 
who,  in  1894,  organized  the  famous  Pullman  strike  at 
Chicago,  in  which  for  the  first  time  the  injunctive  power 
of  the  courts  was  invoked  against  strikers.  Debs  served 
a  term  of  imprisonment  for  contemptuously  violating  the 
court's  order,  and  since  then  has  been  "  a  law-abiding 
citizen  under  protest."  Debs  also  organized  the  Indus- 
trial Union,  which  is  a  union  of  all  persons  in  a  single 
industry.  He  later  organized  the  Industrial  Workers  of 
the  World,  a  syndicalist  body  with  tactics  similar  to  those 
of  the  Syndicalists  of  France. 


2io  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

In  1897,  the  Socialist  Democratic  Party  of  America 
was  formed  by  Debs.  At  its  first  convention  dissension 
arose,  and  Debs  was  outvoted.  He  then  formed  another 
party,  the  Socialist  Democratic  Party  of  the  United 
States. 

In  1899,  there  was  a  split  in  the  Socialist  Labor  Party 
when  a  delegation  from  Rochester  refused  to  acknowl- 
edge the  leadership  of  De  Leon.  The  matter  was  car- 
ried to  the  courts  and  the  De  Leon  faction  won.  It  was 
called  up  at  the  next  convention  and  the  Rochester  fac- 
tion won. 

In  1900,  the  Rochester  faction  and  Debs  arranged 
terms  for  the  affiliation  of  the  Socialist  Democratic  and 
the  Socialist  Labor  parties,  but  after  having  been  ap- 
proved by  the  rank  and  file  of  both  parties,  this  project 
somehow  failed. 

A  year  later,  the  Socialist  Party  was  formed.  An- 
other revival  was  thought  advisable  at  this  time  to  per- 
suade the  masses  that  Socialism,  as  represented  by  the 
new  party,  was  the  only  hope  of  the  working  people. 
The  celebrated  Russian  Socialist,  Gorky,  together  with 
Madame  Andreiva,  toured  the  United  States  in  an  en- 
deavor to  arouse  popular  enthusiasm.  Gorky,  like  Avel- 
ing,  had  left  his  wife  and  family  to  live  with  this  woman 
and  preach  Socialism.  There  is  a  pathetic  incident  con- 
nected with  this  fact  in  the  way  of  a  sequel.  Gorky  and 
the  woman  travelled  the  world  over,  spreading  the  gospel 
of  Socialism.  The  deserted  peasant  wife  devoted  her 
life  to  her  family.  Gorky's  health  failed,  his  income  be- 
gan to  come  slow  and  then  stopped,  and  the  woman 
left  him.  Next,  it  was  reported  that  he  was  dying  at 
some  obscure  place  in  Italy,  penniless,  abandoned.  His 


THE  MOVEMENT  211 

faithful  wife,  in  Russia,  learning  of  his  condition,  went 
to  him  like  a  true  Christian. 

Curiously  enough,  about  the  time  that  Gorky  and  his 
paramour  were  parading  their  moral  bankruptcy  and 
everywhere  receiving  the  plaudits  of  Socialists,  the  no- 
torious Herron-Rand  affair  was  taking  place.  Herron, 
also,  had  a  wife  and  family.  He  had  been  a  Congrega- 
tionalist  minister,  and  in  1898,  together  with  Bliss  and 
Ely,  he  formed  the  sect  called  Christian  Socialists.  He 
later  denied  Christianity,  as  those  who  go  in  for  Social- 
ism eventually  always  do.  He  became  enamored  with 
a  Miss  Rand,  abandoned  his  wife  and  family  and  con- 
tracted a  common-law  marriage  with  the  woman.  Her- 
ron was  already  prominent  in  Socialist  circles,  but  this 
salacious  affair  seemed  to  qualify  him  for  advancement. 
He  rose  to  the  highest  place,  became  a  Secretary  in  the 
International  Congress  of  the  World,  and  for  many  years 
was  the  most  featured  leader  of  the  party.  He  was  sec- 
ond only  to  Gorky  in  importance  as  a  revivalist  for  Debs' 
organization. 

Notwithstanding  the  notorious  character  of  these 
propagandists,  the  revival  produced  good  Socialist  re- 
sults. Within  two  years,  the  new-born  Socialist  Party 
polled  nearly  a  quarter  million  votes.  In  1904,  it  mus- 
tered nearly  half  a  million;  in  1908,  it  passed  the  half- 
million  mark,  and,  in  1912,  it  fell  but  a  few  short  of 
a  million.  Its  rival,  the  Socialist  Labor  Party,  has  pre- 
served its  organization,  but  has  hardly  been  a  factor 
in  the  Socialist  movement  of  late,  and  promises  shortly 
to  disappear. 

No  serious  divisions  have  yet  occurred  in  the  Socialist 
Party.  Division  has  been  threatened,  but  it  has  so  far 


212  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

been  tactfully  averted,  proof  doubtless  of  the  "moult- 
ing "  quality  of  Socialism  that  Bebel  described  in  one  of 
his  speeches  in  the  Reichstag. 

The  first  of  these  near-schisms  occurred  at  the  national 
convention  in  1904,  over  a  dispute  as  to  the  party's  at- 
titude toward  the  trades-unions.  The  Socialist  Labor 
Party  has  never  changed  its  attitude  of  frank  hostility 
to  trades-unions  since  its  final  breach  with  the  Knights 
of  Labor  and  the  Federation,  in  1895,  when  all  hope  of 
using  these  organizations  for  the  propagation  of  Social- 
ism was  abandoned  by  Vogt  and  De  Leon.  But  the  So- 
cialist Party  professed  a  friendship  for  trades-unions. 
In  its  platform  of  1901,  it  declared  it  to  be  "the  duty 
of  Socialists  to  join  the  union  of  their  respective  trades." 
But  in  order  to  give  the  Rochester  faction  of  De  Leon's 
party  an  excuse  for  affiliation,  it  added  that  it  was  the 
duty  of  every  trade-unionist  to  join  the  Socialist  Party, 
because  "  while  the  efforts  of  trades-unions  may  result 
in  lessening  the  exploitation  of  labor,  they  can  never 
abolish  that  exploitation."  In  1902,  the  Western  Labor 
Union,  the  Western  Federation  of  Miners,  and  the 
United  Association  of  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees 
indorsed  the  Socialist  Party.  But  the  American  Federa- 
tion refused  to  indorse  it.  The  effort  to  secure  its  in- 
dorsement was  renewed  the  following  year,  but  the  result 
was  so  decisive  as  to  make  it  altogether  hopeless  to  think 
of  Socialism  capturing  this  great  labor  body  for  a  long 
time  to  come.  When  the  Socialist  convention  met,  in 
1904,  a  large  element  favored  the  repudiation  of  trades- 
unions.  After  a  prolonged  discussion,  during  which  a 
bolt  was  several  times  imminent,  a  compromise  was  ef- 
fected in  terms  that  declared  trades-unions  to  be  neces- 


THE  MOVEMENT  213 

sary  for  the  emancipation  of  the  working  class,  but  these 
unions  must  "  equip  their  members  by  educating  them  in 
Socialist  principles."  Thus,  the  provision  adopted  in 
1901  to  make  it  easier  for  opponents  of  the  unions  to 
give  allegiance  to  the  new  party,  was  reaffirmed  in  1904 
to  quiet  a  rising  insurgency ;  and  the  party  was  saved. 

Another  breach  was  imminent  in  1908.  This  time  it 
was  with  reference  to  whether  or  not  the  party  should 
declare  that  Socialism  has  nothing  to  do  with  religion. 
The  years  since  1904  had  been  marked  with  great  activ- 
ity among  Socialist  propagandists,  both  here  and  abroad, 
and  tens  of  millions  of  Socialist  writings  had  been  dis- 
tributed. No  means  was  neglected  that  could  increase 
this  flood  of  literature.  The  daily  paper  and  the  weekly ; 
the  monthly  magazine,  quarterly  review,  yearly  almanac, 
gazettes,  bulletins,  post-cards,  buttons,  stickers, —  all  were 
employed  to  propagate  the  doctrines  of  Scientific  Social- 
ism. Christians  took  alarm  at  this  excess  of  zeal  for 
doctrines  so  execrable,  and  the  spread  of  anti-Social- 
ist literature  was  begun.  To  offset  this  counter  attack, 
it  was  proposed  in  the  convention  of  1908,  to  declare 
that  Socialism  is  purely  an  economic  movement  and  has 
nothing  to  do  with  religion.  Of  course,  all  the  delegates 
knew  this  to  be  untrue.  But  Hillquit,  who  wrote  the 
platform  and  who,  in  defending  this  provision,  admitted 
that  99  per  cent,  of  all  present  were  atheists,  insisted  that 
such  a  declaration  was  necessary  "to  give  our  speakers 
a  chance  to  defend  themselves  from  the  charge  that  So- 
cialism is  against  religion."  This  subterfuge  did  not  im- 
mediately appeal  to  the  delegates.  True,  they  were  So- 
cialists and  atheists,  but  they  were  not  base  hypocrites. 
"  I  know,"  said  one  of  the  delegates,  "  that  the  Socialist 


214  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

position  on  religion  does  not  make  a  good  campaign  sub- 
ject, and  I  am  willing  we  should  be  silent  about  it.  But 
if  we  must  speak,  I  propose  that  we  go  before  this  coun- 
try with  the  truth,  and  not  with  a  lie."  But  Hillquit 
held  the  whip-hand  of  the  convention ;  the  very  delegate 
who  delivered  this  frank  utterance  was  induced  to  give 
his  sanction  to  the  "  lie,"  and  it  was  finally  adopted  by 
a  majority  of  one.  The  Socialist  papers  reported  that 
there  had  not  been  such  a  "  conventional  storm  "  in  years, 
but  that  it  was  happily  quelled  and  all  could  "  now  re- 
joice that  the  attitude  of  Socialism  toward  religion  is 
clearly  defined  and  no  longer  open  to  the  criticism  of 
ignorant  and  malicious  preachers  who  oppose  Socialism 
because  they  are  tools  of  the  capitalists  and  supremely 
interested  in  keeping  the  people  in  political  and  economic 
subjection."  In  1912,  Hillquit's  "  lie "  was  dropped 
from  the  platform  without  so  much  as  a  discussion,  and 
it  is  notable  that  this  is  practically  the  only  provision 
of  the  1908  platform  which  was  omitted  from  that  of 
1912. 

Another  breach  was  seriously  threatened  in  the  1912 
convention.  Hillquit,  with  his  ear  to  the  ground,  had 
heard  the  rumblings  started  by  the  Cooper  Union  speech 
of  the  notorious  "I  Won't  Work"  Bill  Haywood. 
When  that  speech  was  made,  the  public  mind  was  in  a 
state  of  high  tension  on  the  subjects  of  lawlessness  and 
violence.  The  Los  Angeles  Times  explosion,  the  con- 
fession of  the  McNamaras,  and  the  exposure  of  the 
terrible  "  Dynamiting  Conspiracy,"  had  put  the  general 
public  in  a  frame  of  mind  that  would  not  tolerate  such 
utterances  as  Haywood's.  Accordingly,  although  he  had 
gone  unrebuked  by  Socialists  at  the  time,  even  to  all  ap- 


THE  MOVEMENT  215 

pearances  had  been  made  a  Socialist  hero  for  his  trea- 
sonable words,  Hillquit  insisted  that  the  convention  go 
on  record  as  condemning  measures  of  violence.  The  op- 
position to  his  view  was  so  strong  that  he  was  unable 
to  get  it  adopted  and  he  shrewdly  consented  to  its  sub- 
mission to  a  general  vote  of  the  party.  At  the  same 
time,  as  a  further  step  in  the  way  of  placating  public 
opinion,  a  measure  to  recall  Haywood  from  the  Execu- 
tive Committee  was  submitted  to  a  general  vote.  It  was 
not  proposed,  however,  to  expel  him  from  the  party, 
which  would  seem  consistent  if  the  measure  condemn- 
ing violence  is  regarded  as  anything  more  than  a  mere 
expedient. 

How  long  the  Socialist  Party  will  be  able  to  hold  to- 
gether the  jarring  elements  that  compose  it,  is  a  matter 
of  conjecture;  but  the  indications  are  that  before  very 
long  history  will  be  repeated  and  division  will  appear. 
It  is  safe  to  predict  that  when  it  comes,  the  rank  and 
file  will  follow  the  lead  of  their  sympathies  instead  of  the 
tactics  of  those  who  control  the  machinery  of  their  or- 
ganization, and  then  they  will  proclaim  in  their  conven- 
tions, as  of  old,  the  sentiment  inscribed  upon  the  ban- 
ners now  carried  in  their  processions :  "  No  God !  No 
Master !  Down  with  the  capitalists !  The  less  work  the 
better ! " 


THIRD  PART 
THE  AIMS  OF  SOCIALISM 


CHAPTER  ONE 
AS  A  THOUGHT  MOVEMENT 

I.    IN  PHILOSOPHY 

All  intelligent  action  has  some  aim;  whatever  is  aim- 
less is  not  intelligent.  An  aim  is  a  point  considered  in 
the  mind  as  the  end  of  self-directed  motion.  It  is  a 
definite  point  toward  which  the  minds  directs  action. 
The  point  exists  independently  of  the  mind,  but  not  as 
an  aim ;  it  is  the  mind  directing  action  toward  the  point 
that  makes  it  an  aim.  To  constitute  an  aim,  therefore, 
there  must  be  a  mind  (subjective),  a  point  (objective), 
and  space  or  distance  between;  the  mind  directs  action 
towards  the  point  and  it  becomes  the  aim  of  that  action. 

These  are  homely  truths,  but  for  this  very  reason  they 
are  not  infrequently  suffered  to  pass  out  of  mind.  Such 
are  the  speed  and  intensity  that  characterize  modern  so- 
cial activity,  such  is  the  desire  for  novelty  and  invention, 
that  even  self-evident  truths  are  sometimes  forgotten. 
Hence,  although  it  is  but  repeating  a  truism  to  call  to 
mind  the  threefold  constitution  of  an  aim,  the  purpose 
of  this  study  seems  to  render  it  timely. 

There  is  no  aim  in  Socialist  philosophy.  Materialism 
excludes  a  subjective;  dialectics  excludes  an  objective; 
the  action  of  matter  upon  itself  cannot  have  a  direction. 
Socialist  philosophers  say  that  matter  "  generates  within 

219 


220  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

itself  its  own  negation,  and  this  negation  in  turn  gene- 
rates its  negation,  and  so  on  indefinitely.  .  .  .  This  is 
the  eternal  law,  and  it  is  fulfilled  as  strictly  in  the  most 
minute  particle  of  ether  as  it  is  in  the  molecule,  the 
atom,  the  crystal,  a  plant,  animal,  man,  earth,  sun  or 
the  entire  universe."  Here  are  expressed  all  of  the  es- 
sentials of  the  Hegelian-Feuerbach  base  of  the  dialectic 
materialistic  monism  taught  by  Marx  and  Engels  and  re- 
ligiously held  as  true  by  all  Scientific  Socialists.  Feuer- 
bach's  universal  principle  of  "  matter  "  being  substituted 
for  Hegel's  universal  principle  of  "  mind,"  it  follows  that 
the  primary  thought  (thesis)  of  Hegel's  dialectics  is 
displaced  by  the  positive  existence  of  matter,  while  his 
non-thought  (antithesis)  is  displaced  by  the  negation  of 
that  existence.  But  it  should  be  marked  that  the  activ- 
ity of  matter  thus  exerted  in  generating  its  non-self,  is 
exerted  "  within  itself,"  where  there  can  be  no  distinc- 
tion between  subjective  and  objective  and  where,  there- 
fore, it  is  impossible  to  posit  an  aim. 

The  application  of  the  Socialist  philosophy  to  human 
action  serves  to  elucidate  its  aimless  character.  The  car- 
dinal feature  of  this  philosophy,  in  its  actual  exemplifi- 
cation, is  the  assumed  fact  that  all  human  activity  is  bent 
in  the  direction  of  increasing  the  accessible  food  supply. 
Narrowly  viewed,  this  would  seem  to  present  an  aim, 
since  the  subjective  mind  and  the  objective  point  are 
imagined  as  being  distinct,  and  the  mind  as  directing  ac- 
tion with  reference  to  the  point.  But  a  broader  consid- 
eration dissipates  this  view.  The  principle  of  the  all- 
inclusiveness  of  matter  eliminates  the  distinction  between 
subjective  and  objective,  and  in  the  light  of  that  prin- 
ciple it  cannot  be  said  that  human  activity  is  subjective 


AS  A  THOUGHT  MOVEMENT  221 

and  the  food  supply  objective.  It  might  as  well  be  said 
that  the  food  supply  is  the  subjective  point  and  human 
activity  the  objective,  and  that  the  aim  is  to  increase  hu- 
man activity.  Each  factor  is  but  a  point  in  the  universal 
principle  of  matter. 

A  familiar  law  of  physics  illustrates  this  view :  an  un- 
supported body  will  fall  to  the  ground;  from  one  view- 
point it  falls  of  its  own  weight  and  seems  to  seek  the 
earth,  but  from  another  viewpoint  the  earth  attracts  it; 
hence,  the  subjective  and  objective  points  vary  accord- 
ing to  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  narrow  views.  But 
the  truth  is  the  earth  "  falls "  toward  an  unsupported 
body  just  as  much,  considering  size,  as  it  falls  toward 
the  earth ;  they  seek  each  other ;  they  attract  each  other. 
This  simple  law  at  once  removes  the  impression  that  it 
is  possible  for  mere  matter  to  present  the  distinction  of 
subjective  and  objective  to  one  of  clear  understanding. 

Since  the  acquisition  of  food  is  the  avowed  aim  of 
human  activity,  as  viewed  in  this  so-called  philosophy, 
it  is  pertinent  to  inquire,  why  man  wants  food?  It  will 
of  course  be  said,  in  order  to  live.  But  why  live  ?  The 
answer  is,  to  be  happy.  Then,  why  the  desire  to  be 
happy  ?  "  Oh,  that  is  a  foolish  question !  "  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  a  very  sensible  question.  Molecules,  atoms, 
ether  particles  do  not  desire  to  be  happy,  why  should 
men?  When  did  that  desire  creep  into  "matter"? 
Where  did  it  come  from?  Is  it  an  expression  of  mat- 
ter's self,  or  of  its  non-self?  And  if  of  its  self,  why 
does  not  the  change  to  its  non-self  blot  it  out?  But  if 
of  its  non-self,  why  does  not  the  change  to  itself  de- 
stroy it? 

If  the  Socialist,  taking  his  cue  from  Deville,  says  that 


222  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

this  desire,  like  all  other  conceivable  things,  is  embodied 
eternally  in  matter,  "  just  as  the  fruit  is  embodied  in 
the  seed  from  which  it  springs,"  then,  why  did  it  not 
stay  embodied?  what  is  the  aim  of  its  coming  forth?  If 
it  be  said,  to  attain  to  perfect  happiness,  then,  what  is 
perfect  happiness  in  "  matter  "  ?  Why  is  a  well-fed  mass 
of  matter  formed  into  a  man  happier  than  a  well-filled 
mass  of  the  same  matter  formed  into  a  sponge?  And 
how  does  the  sponge  know  the  difference  and  try  to  grow 
to  man's  estate? 

These  questions  are  pertinent  to  the  search  for  an  aim 
in  Socialist  philosophy.  What  is  the  aim  of  the  eternal 
criss-cross  action  —  the  infinite  negations,  the  blotting 
itself  out  only  to  come  into  existence  again  and  again  be 
blotted  out  —  that  Socialism  predicates  of  matter? 
What  is  the  aim  of  the  universal  struggle  it  predicates 
of  life?  of  the  everlasting  conflict  it  predicates  of  so- 
ciety? It  is  no  answer  to  speak  of  happiness  until  we 
know  what  is  happiness,  how  one  particle  of  mere  mat- 
ter can  be  happier  than  another  particle,  and  how  the 
other  particle  can  perceive  the  difference  and  thereby  be 
prompted  to  correct  itself.  Nor  is  it  an  answer  to  refer 
to  progress,  unless  there  is  pointed  out  a  standard  of 
progress  whereby  the  change  of  matter  from  itself  to 
its  otherness  is  seen  to  be  progress,  and  the  change  back 
to  itself  further  progress,  and  that  matter  perceives  from 
its  self-state  that  in  passing  to  its  otherness  it  progresses, 
and  then  perceives  from  its  otherness  that  in  passing 
back  to  itself  it  progresses  further.  There  is  no  answer 
to  these  questions  in  Socialist  teaching.  It  holds  that 
"  Nothing  is,  everything  is  becoming  " ;  that  the  law  of 
progress  and  life  "  is  the  eternal  coming  into  exist- 


AS  A  THOUGHT  MOVEMENT  223 

ence  and  passing  away  " ;  that  the  only  fixed  principle  in 
the  universe  is  "  the  fixed  principle  that  nothing  is 
fixed  " ;  and  in  so  doing  it  shows  plainly  that  it  has  no 
aim. 

NOTE:  This  chapter  should  be  considered  in  immediate  con- 
nection with  Chapter  Two  of  First  Part,  where  the  philosophy 
of  Socialism  is  treated  with  proper  references.  Should  it  be  ob- 
jected that  the  rank  and  file  Socialists  do  not  hold  all  the  teach- 
ings of  Scientific  Socialists,  we  admit  it ;  neither  do  they  represent 
Socialism  as  a  thought-movement,  which  is  the  special  phase  here 
being  treated. 

II.     IN  RELIGION 

Socialism  pretends  to  be  a  religion  as  well  as  a 
philosophy.  It  is  a  religion  without  a  God,  a  heaven,  a 
hell,  or  a  moral  code;  a  religion  that  denies  human  in- 
telligence, free  will,  and  immortality.  Yet,  if  we  listen 
to  its  inspiring  apostles,  a  religion  it  certainly  is.  What 
is  the  aim  of  such  a  religion?  It  should  have  an  aim, 
since  that  which  is  aimless  is  not  intelligent ;  and  its  aim 
should  be  consistent  with  Socialist  fundamentals.  Its 
aim  cannot  be  to  worship  God  or  to  attain  heaven  or  to 
avoid  hell,  for  it  denies  the  existence  of  all  these.  It 
cannot  be  an  aim  with  reference  to  anything  or  to  any 
point  outside  of  mere  matter,  for  it  holds  that  there  is 
nothing  but  matter. 

Socialist  philosophy  admits  the  existence  of  man  and 
of  the  brute,  and  that  in  some  respects  these  are  sepa- 
rate and  distinct.  Here  we  discern  the  three  requisites 
for  an  aim,  the  subjective  mind  (presumably  in  man), 
the  objective  point,  and  the  space  or  distance  between; 
it  is  only  required  that  action  be  directed  by  the  mind 


A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

toward  the  point,  and  there  exists  a  definite  aim.  That 
the  aim  thus  indicated  is  not  acceptable  to  most  people, 
is  not  the  question;  if  that  is  not  the  aim  of  Socialist 
religion,  it  is  aimless;  in  no  other  direction  than  toward 
the  brute  is  there  an  objective  point  whose  existence  is 
admitted  by  Socialist  science.  Moreover,  though  repug- 
nant to  the  finer  sensibilites  of  the  Socialists  even,  this 
back-to-the-brute  aim  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  prin- 
ciple of  Socialist  progression,  which  consists  in  the  de- 
velopment of  antitheses.  According  to  the  Socialists, 
man  proceeded  from  the  brute  through  an  infinite  series 
of  negations;  hence  it  is  natural,  not  to  say  inevitable, 
that  when  the  term  of  his  development  is  reached,  he 
must  go  back  to  the  brute  by  virtue  of  this  same  law  of 
negations. 

But  it  is  claimed  that  Humanism,  or  "  the  solidarity  of 
the  human  race,"  is  the  religious  aim  of  Socialism. 
This  aim  is  described  as  one  of  surpassing  greatness,  far 
removed  from  all  brutish  ideas,  and  exceeding  in  purity 
and  truth  the  aim  of  all  other  religions.  Exactly  what 
the  phrase  "  solidarity  of  the  human  race "  signifies,  is 
not  clear.  But  certainly  it  has  no  reference  to  a  spiritual 
condition,  for  whatever  smacks  of  the  spiritual  is  repug- 
nant to  Socialist  philosophy.  Being  limited  to  its  ma- 
terial significance,  it  must  refer  either  to  the  mental  or 
to  the  physical  solidarity  of  the  race,  if  not  to  both.  If 
mental,  the  Socialist  is  carried  backward  with  the  evolu- 
tionary swing  toward  brute  existence,  where  there  exists 
a  mental  solidarity  that  is  not  broken  by  so  much  as  the 
gift  of  speech,  not  to  mention  the  power  of  understand- 
ing. If  physical,  the  swing  is  only  of  wider  sweep,  the 
brute  line  is  passed  and 


AS  A  THOUGHT  MOVEMENT  225 

"  Dust  mingles  with  dust  and  ashes  with  ashes  lie." 

Thus,  the  Socialist  who  adheres  to  the  basic  princi- 
ples of  his  philosophy,  is  tossed  between  the  two  horns 
of  a  dilemma  and  must  admit  that  his  religion  is  aimless 
or  worse  than  aimless. 

The  difficulty  in  the  way  of  so  many  Socialists  who 
try  to  get  at  the  truth  and  yet  fail  to  discern  the  absurd- 
ities involved  in  Socialist  teaching,  arises  from  their  fail- 
ure to  make  that  teaching  stand  its  own  ground.  What- 
ever in  Socialism  is  possible,  is  made  so  by  virtue  of  it 
being  reconciled  to  things  with  which  Socialism  is  radic- 
ally at  issue.  Many  overlook  the  conflict,  but  note  the 
harmony,  and  give  Socialism  the  credit.  This  is  clearly 
illustrated  by  the  phrase  under  discussion.  If  taken  in  a 
spiritual  sense,  the  "  solidarity  of  the  human  race "  is 
both  suggestive  and  appealing ;  the  deepest  and  truest  re- 
ligious impulse  is  prompted  by  it ;  it  is  but  another  way 
of  saying:  "Thy  Kingdom  come  on  earth."  And 
whether  consciously  or  unconsciously,  men  of  good  in- 
tention grasp  this  spiritual  significance  of  the  phrase,  not 
necessarily  in  a  pious  sense,  but  with  an  instinctive  re- 
ligious feeling,  a  feeling  which  holds  man  in  that  esteem 
which  his  rational  nature  demands  and  to  which  his 
immortal  soul  more  than  entitles  him.  Men  of  good  will 
are  prompt  to  espouse  whatever  promises  or  proposes  the 
uplift  of  mankind,  and  Socialism  comes  to  them  with 
this  pretense.  Many  do  not  pause  to  consider  that  So- 
cialism denies  that  anything  exists  for  mankind  to  be 
lifted  up  to,  and  they  are  deceived  by  this  false  pre- 
tense. Caution  should  be  observed  to  consider  Socialist 
proposals  from  a  Socialist  standpoint  only.  Not  to  do 


226  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

this  is  to  invite  unnecessary  confusion  of  thought  and 
fatal  disorder  of  purpose. 

III.     IN  MORALS 

There  is  widely  read  among  Socialists,  especially  in 
America,  a  little  book  entitled,  The  Folly  of  Being 
Good,  by  Chas.  H.  Kerr,  editor  of  the  International  So- 
cialist Review.  This  title  does  not  indicate  what  is  the 
aim  of  Socialist  morals,  but  it  leaves  no  doubt  as  to 
what  is  not  the  aim.  Both  the  philosophy  and  the  reli- 
gion of  Socialism  ratify  the  notion  that  it  is  folly  to  be 
good;  they  would  even  support  a  thesis  on  The  Folly 
of  Being,  which  indeed,  a  number  of  leading  Socialists 
may  be  said  to  have  very  seriously  maintained  by  calmly 
committing  suicide. 

But  if  the  aim  of  Socialist  morals  is  not  to  be  good, 
is  it,  on  the  other  hand,  to  be  bad  ?  Certainly  not ;  that 
also,  would  be  a  folly.  Then,  since  there  are  only  good, 
bad,  and  indifferent  acts,  indifference  must  be  the  aim  of 
Socialist  morals. 

This  conclusion  does  not  depend  upon  the  chance  title 
of  a  cheap  bit  of  literature.  Socialist  teaching,  in  its 
basic  outlines  as  well  as  in  its  structural  details,  is  in- 
grained with  the  idea  that  it  is  foolish  to  be  good  or  to 
be  bad,  foolish  to  consider  the  moral  quality  of  human 
action.  It  holds  that,  in  the  last  analysis,  man  has  no 
free  choice,  but  is  governed  willy-nilly  by  his  environ- 
ment ;  and  moreover,  that  if  he  had  a  free  choice,  he 
has  no  self-consciousness  to  guide  him  in  its  use ;  and 
finally,  that  if  he  had  self-consciousness,  there  is  no  fixed 
standard  to  which  he  can  refer  its  direction ;  hence  to 
speak  of  the  moral  quality  of  human  conduct  is  to  speak 


AS  A  THOUGHT  MOVEMENT  227 

nonsense.  Where  this  is  not  expressly  taught  by  Social- 
ists it  is  unmistakably  implied  in  their  doctrine  of  eco- 
nomic determinism. 

The  indifference  of  Socialist  thought  and  teaching  to 
moral  qualities  is  shown  by  their  bearing  on  social  insti- 
tutions that  are  intimately  connected  with  morality,  such 
as  marriage,  property,  law.  Socialism  holds  these  insti- 
tutions in  no  esteem.  It  would  abolish  marriage,  destroy 
property,  dispense  with  law.  It  would  reduce  human  ex- 
istence and  human  activity  to  a  downright  mechanical 
process  in  keeping  with  its  dialectic  of  "  coming  into  ex- 
istence and  passing  away,"  and  it  is  in  the  light  of  these 
proposals  that  its  moral  aim,  or  its  moral  aimlessness, 
must  be  considered  and  judged. 

Considering  Socialism  in  its  broad  sweep  as  a  thought- 
movement,  all  of  its  teachings  are  annulled,  rendered  aim- 
less and  unintelligent,  through  dialectic  materialistic 
monism.  Its  sociality  becomes  non-social,  its  morality 
non-moral,  its  religion  non-religious,  its  whole  array  of 
principles  illogical,  impossible,  contradictory,  and  sense- 
less at  every  point  where  they  come  under  the  shadow 
of  the  monumental  deceit  called  evolutionary  material- 
ism. Indeed,  it  cannot  truly  be  said  to  have  principles, 
but  only  erratic,  phantastic  theories  that  masquerade  as 
principles.  It  cannot  be  truly  called  a  thought-move- 
ment ;  it  is  just  a  mental  ferment  that  rises  from  the 
commingling  of  sentiment  and  passion  with  ignorance 
and  disappointment.  It  is  like  a  rudderless  and  dis- 
mantled ship  manned  by  a  mutinous  crew  that  disdains 
chart  and  compass  and  knows  not  whence  it  came  nor 
whither  it  is  drifting. 

If   Socialists  would  only  stand  by  their  philosophy, 


228  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

there  would  be  no  occasion  to  examine  their  aims,  for  the 
necessary  consequence  of  their  fatalistic  theories  is  non- 
action.  But  Socialists  are  the  one  class  of  persons  in 
the  world  for  whom  necessary  consequences  are  not  nec- 
essary. They  are  gifted  with  a  peculiar  mental  faculty 
that  none  but  themselves  can  understand  or  rightly  ap- 
preciate; a  faculty  that  sees  no  difficulty  in  admitting 
that  two  contradictory  propositions  are  at  the  same  time 
true,  that  a  thing  can  be  and  at  the  same  time  not  be, 
can  be  itself  and  at  the  same  time  something  else. 
While  they  steadfastly  hold  that  man's  consciousness  does 
not  determine  his  life  but  is  itself  determined  by  his 
social  life,  they  at  the  same  time  heartily  condemn  all 
who  do  not  accept  their  views.  While  they  claim  that 
the  advent  of  Socialism  is  as  inevitable  as  the  passing 
of  time,  they  at  the  same  time  organize,  agitate,  work, 
fight, —  and  of  their  writing  and  talking  there  seems  no 
end, —  in  order  to  hurry  on  its  coming. 

In  fine,  Socialists  do  not  stand  by  their  philosophy. 
They  will  not  be  convicted  by  their  own  testimony. 
Therefore,  notwithstanding  the  obvious  impossibility  of 
establishing  any  proposal  germane  to  the  Socialist 
thought-movement  without  fatally  conflicting  with  its 
teachings,  practical  considerations  induce  a  more  ex- 
tended examination  of  Socialist  aims  as  they  appear  in 
other  phases  of  the  movement,  political,  economic,  social. 
Socialist  fundamentals  may  not  be  entirely  dispensed  with 
here ;  they  may  be  found  indispensable  later  to  bring  out 
the  true  meaning  of  some  involved  teaching ;  but  in  what 
is  to  follow  from  this  point  their  discussion  shall  in  the 
main  be  treated  as  closed. 


CHAPTER  TWO 
AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT 

I.    REVOLUTION 

Socialism  is  nothing  if  not  revolutionary.  In  philos- 
ophy, in  religion,  in  government,  in  life,  its  aim  is  to 
overthrow  and  destroy  society.  London  says :  "  It  is  no 
less  than  to  destroy  existing  society  and  take  possession 
of  the  destinies  of  mankind."  x  In  their  revolutionary 
proposals  Socialists  are  even  more  radical  than  are  an- 
archists. Veblen  says :  "Of  the  two,  the  Socialists  are 
more  widely  out  of  touch  with  the  established  order,  more 
hopelessly  negative  and  destructive  in  their  proposals."  2 
So  thorough  would  be  the  revolution  they  contemplate 
that  its  accomplishment  would  not  leave  of  civilization 
anything  but  a  memory.  Bax  says :  "  It  is  toward  a 
world  where  Civilization  shall  have  ceased  to  be,  that 
the  Socialist  of  to-day  sets  his  eyes." 3 

The  first  and  final  aim  of  Socialism,  as  a  political 
movement,  is  to  effect  the  "  Great  Revolution "  thus 
broadly  outlined.  Revolution  is  the  watchword  of  the 
movement:  "  Vive  la  Revolution!"  exclaims  the  recog- 

1  Address  to  the  Students  of  Yale,  1906. 

2  Theory  of  Business  Enterprise,  338.     See  article,  "  Veblen  as 
a  Revolutionist"  (Int.  Soc.  Rev.  vol.  5,  p.  726),  for  an  estimate 
of  his  critical  views  of  Socialism. 

3  Universal  History  from  a  Socialist  Standpoint. 

229 


230  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

nized  standard-bearer  of  the  movement  in  America ; 
"  The  most  heroic  word  in  all  the  languages  is  Revolu- 
tion !  Let  us  glorify  the  revolutions  of  the  past  and  hail 
the  Great  Revolution  that  is  to  come !  "  4 

In  the  furtherance  of  this  aim,  Socialists  make  con- 
tinual war  upon  society.  The  points  of  their  immediate 
attack  are  religion,  the  family,  and  the  State.  La  Monte 
says :  "  The  realization  of  the  political  and  economic 
aims  of  Socialism  involves  the  atrophy  of  Religion,  the 
metamorphosis  of  the  Family,  and  the  suicide  of  the 
State."  5  The  point  of  their  ultimate  attack  is  private 
property.  Debs  says:  "The  historic  mission  of  the 
movement  is  to  abolish  the  system  based  upon  private 
ownership."  6 

According  to  the  Socialist  reading  of  history,  the  first 
divisions  of  property  in  primitive  society  gave  rise  to 
a  corresponding  division  of  society  into  classes,  and  there 
sprang  up  between  these  classes  a  struggle  for  position 
which  resulted  in  the  formation  of  the  State.  With  the 
narrowing  of  the  divisions  of  property  through  time,  the 
economic  interests  of  classes  were  narrowed  to  individual 
interests,  and  there  sprang  up  in  each  individual  the  de- 
sire to  perpetuate  his  holdings  by  transmitting  to  his  off- 
spring ;  hence,  the  Family  became  necessary  that  the  indi- 
vidual might  know  his  offspring.  The  establishment  of 
these  institutions  probably  was  not  very  difficult,  but  as 
the  advantages  thereby  secured  became  multiplied  over 
and  over,  a  constantly  increasing  number  of  persons  had 
to  be  deprived,  and  the  ruling  class  foresaw  that  in  the 

*  Writings  and  Speeches  of  Debs. 

5  Socialism,  Positive  and  Negative. 

6  Op.  cit. 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  231 

distant  future  it  would  not  be  able  to  preserve  its  ad- 
vantage by  mere  force,  so  to  supplement  the  State  and 
Family  the  scheme  of  God  and  religion  was  devised  to 
"chloroform"  the  subject  class  into  submission,  while  it 
was  being  oppressed  and  robbed;  and  hence,  religion 
holds  out  special  promises  to  the  poor,  lays  special  stress 
upon  obedience,  insists  upon  the  rights  of  property,  the 
authority  of  the  State,  and  the  inviolability  of  the  mar- 
riage vow.  This  is  the  way  Socialists  explain  how  there 
has  grown  up  in  the  world  what  Marx  was  pleased  to 
term  "  a  perverted  civilization,  in  which  the  idea  of 
God  is  the  keystone,  and  the  right  of  property  the  foun- 
dation." 

In  revolutionizing  civilization,  Socialism  inverts  the 
order  described  and  begins  with  an  attack  on  religion.  It 
pitches  the  line  of  engagement  somewhere  between  thinly 
veiled  irreverence  and  openly  expressed  hatred  for  reli- 
gion, as  policy  dictates.  It  advances  its  posts  as  circum- 
stances direct,  shifts  its  position  when  expedient,  calls 
a  truce  when  necessary,  but  never  falls  back.  It  sup- 
ports this  attack  with  a  flank  movement  against  the  fam- 
ily, and  by  scoffing  at  the  virtue  of  married  persons, 
condemning  the  objects  of  the  marriage  institution,  pity- 
ing the  dependence  of  married  women,  striving  for  a 
more  facile  severance  of  the  marriage  bond,  teaching 
shamelessness  in  the  relations  of  sex,  encouraging  the 
practice  of  free-love, —  it  brings  numerous  forces  to  bear 
down  upon  the  social  unit.  At  the  same  time  another 
wing  of  the  attack  is  directed  against  the  State,  and 
with  a  uniform  and  steadfast  contempt  for  law  and  au- 
thority marking  the  entire  sweep  of  its  thought  and  ac- 
tion, and  culminating  in  frequent  acts  of  violence  and 


232  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

crime,  it  wages  the  issue  with  such  signal  effect  that  the 
social  well-being  is  seriously  threatened,  where  it  is  not 
actually  endangered. 

But  the  focal  point  against  which  these  concerted  at- 
tacks are  all  directed,  is  the  right  of  private  property. 
Socialism  holds  that  upon  the  recognition  of  this  right 
as  upon  a  foundation  are  resting  all  of  the  institutions  of 
a  perverted  civilization,  and  hence,  its  final  aim  is  to 
uproot  this  foundation  at  the  very  bottom.  If  religion, 
the  family  and  the  State,  are  points  of  first  attack,  that 
is  because  it  sees  in  them  not  only  the  fruits  but  also 
the  guaranties  of  the  right  of  private  property.  With  the 
abrogation  of  religion  and  the  passing  of  the  stultifying 
faith  in  a  heaven  hereafter,  it  holds  that  men  will  seek 
to  establish  a  heaven  here,  and  then  the  State  with  all 
its  equipment  of  armies  and  navies  and  laws  and  prisons 
and  police,  will  be  powerless  to  resist  the  demands  of 
the  awakened  proletariat  and,  with  the  State's  surren- 
der, the  last  support  that  private  property  has  will  fall. 
If  the  family  has  not  previously  fallen  as  a  result  of 
the  hypocrisy,  the  immorality,  and  the  tyranny  that  weigh 
it  down,  it  will  then  fall  by  virtue  of  the  equality  brought 
about  between  the  sexes  through  the  abrogation  of  prop- 
erty. Women  then  being  free  to  mate  and  unmate  at 
the  promptings  of  their  sexual  impulses,  the  identity  of 
parenthood  will  be  lost  and  the  instinct  of  acquisition  in 
perpetuity,  the  very  soil  in  which  private  ownership  is 
rooted,  will  disappear  and  be  forgotten.  Then,  Social 
Democracy,  or  the  Co-operative  Commonwealth,  or  the 
Workingman's  Paradise,  or  The  Great  State,  as  Social- 
isdom  is  variously  called,  without  a  fear  of  God  or  the 
devil,  will  be  ushered  in  to  bless  mankind  forever, 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  233 

i.  A  Criticism. 

The  aims  of  the  Socialist  politic  are  not  of  possible  re- 
alization. The  institutions  of  religion,  the  family,  the 
State  and  private  property  cannot  be  destroyed ;  they  are 
necessary  for  man  to  reach  the  term  of  his  development, 
necessary  for  him  to  achieve  the  end  of  his  existence. 
This  goes  with  the  saying,  but  it  is  not  all  that  is  to  be 
said.  Though  not  liable  to  destruction,  these  institutions 
are  liable  to  disorder.  An  active,  determined  purpose  to 
abolish  religion,  though  never  to  be  realized,  encourages 
if  it  does  not  engender  atheism  and  infidelity,  the  twin 
harlots  that  breed  sin,  anarchy  and  rebellion  in  society. 
A  set  plan  looking  to  the  destruction  of  the  State,  though 
never  to  be  executed,  provokes  civil  discord,  lawlessness, 
violence,  and  crime.  Serious  attacks  upon  the  family 
and  the  right  of  property,  though  finally  repulsed,  sow 
the  seeds  of  domestic  unhappiness,  of  sexual  immorality 
and  perversion,  of  deceit  and  dishonesty  and  all  other 
kinds  of  thievish  and  corrupt  practices.  Where  in  any 
society  a  considerable  number  of  its  members  have  no 
respect  for  law,  no  regard  for  property,  no  concern  for 
marriage,  and  freely  indulge  in  mockeries  of  God  and 
scoffings  at  religion,  there  cannot  be  peace  or  progress, 
there  will  be  no  blessings  and  but  a  mean  existence  for 
mankind. 

But  there  is  another  side  to  this  dismal  picture,  and 
it  is  covered  with  hope  and  promise  and  bright  color. 
The  aim  of  the  Socialist  politic  as  outlined  upon  the  other 
side  is  contrary  in  all  details  to  that  already  sketched. 
It  holds  out  that  in  Socialisdom,  religion,  instead  of  be- 
ing abolished,  will  be  made  real  and  perfect;  its  contra- 
dictions will  be  eliminated,  its  hypocrisies  exposed,  its 


234  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

corrupt  practices  terminated ;  instead  of  being  an  instru- 
ment in  the  hands  of  unscrupulous  capitalists,  who  em- 
ploy it  to  keep  the  workingman  looking  towards  heaven 
while  they  rob  him,  it  will  become  in  the  hands  of  the 
workingman  an  instrument  to  destroy  selfishness  and 
make  of  all  men  brothers.  It  holds  out  that  the  family, 
instead  of  being  extirpated  from  society,  will  be  brought 
to  the  most  exalted  place  in  society ;  its  economic  inequal- 
ities will  be  abolished,  the  slavish  dependence  on  the 
part  of  the  woman,  the  universal  infidelity  on  the  part 
of  the  man,  the  one-sided  code  of  morals  on  the  part  of 
society  will  come  to  an  end ;  and  marriage,  instead  of  be- 
ing a  cloak  for  prostitution  and  adultery,  will  become  a 
union  of  persons  of  true  affinities ;  and  children,  instead 
of  coming  unwelcome  into  the  world  where  they  are  a 
burden  and  a  care,  will  be  welcomed  as  a  result  of  this 
union,  which,  being  perfect  itself,  will  produce  a  per- 
fect offspring,  whose  upbringing  will  be  an  affectionate 
care  upon  all  members  of  society.  It  holds  out  that  the 
State,  instead  of  being  destroyed,  will  be  more  intelli- 
gently organized,  so  that  the  infinite  waste  of  effort  that 
now  characterizes  all  lines  of  industry,  the  deplorable 
state  of  corruption  that  marks  all  departments  of  gov- 
ernment, the  artificial  and  oppressive  class  distinctions, 
the  false  ideals,  the  perversions  of  civilization  that  exist, 
will  be  finally  and  forever  ended.  It  holds  out  that  prop- 
erty rights,  instead  of  being  violated,  will  be  established ; 
that  in  the  place  of  the  present  fiction,  which  mockingly 
declares  the  right  of  property  to  be  sacred  when  two- 
thirds  of  society  own  none  and  are  being  systematically 
robbed  of  what  they  produce  and  thus  hindered  from 
ever  owning  any,  will  be  set  up  an  industrial  condition 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  235 

wherein  all  persons  would  have  all  the  property  they  need. 
Thus  is  our  first  view  of  the  Socialist  aim  contradicted 
and  opposed  in  all  particulars. 

It  could  be  wished  that  the  view  exhibited  by  the  sec- 
ond of  these  sketches  were  something  more  than  an  in- 
genious Socialist  tactic.  But  unfortunately,  civilization 
is  not  built  on  paper.  Human  beings  are  necessary  to  its 
building,  and  as  a  rule,  human  beings  are  very  human: 
if  they  are  injured  they  retaliate,  if  oppressed,  they 
rebel ;  when  passion  moves  them  they  move  apace,  when 
nature  prompts  they  respond;  their  desires  are  never 
rilled,  their  cravings  never  satisfied,  their  ambitions  never 
realized;  put  a  beggar  on  horseback,  and  he  will  ask 
to  be  made  king,  set  him  to  rule,  and  he  will  want  to 
conquer,  and  if  the  world  is  brought  under  his  domin- 
ion, like  Alexander  he  will  weep  because  there  is  no 
more  territory. 

In  the  light  of  these  observations  the  tactical  proposals 
of  Socialist  politics  are  seen  in  their  true  character. 
Considered  apart  from  the  elemental  traits  of  human 
nature,  they  are  mere  creatures  of  fancy;  considered 
in  connection  with  those  traits,  they  contradict  all  reason 
and  all  experience.  Give  man  all  the  property  he  wants, 
let  him  love  or  lust  as  he  lists,  take  away  from  him  all 
fear  of  God  and  all  restraint  of  authority,  and  his  in- 
herent propensities  will  urge  him  headlong  to  destruc- 
tion. Freedom  from  all  restraint  means  destruction  for 
any  finite  being.  Absolute  liberty  in  effect  is  as  fatal  as 
absolute  prohibition.  Restraint  is  the  law  of  progressive 
growth  and  the  condition  of  advancing  civilization.  It  is 
at  once  a  requisite  to  individual  security  and  a  pre- 
requisite to  social  stability. 


236  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

The  source  of  restraint  on  human  impulse  and  human 
action  are  the  will  of  God,  the  laws  of  nature,  and  the 
ordinances  of  society.  The  recognition  and  observance 
of  these  are  necessary  for  the  preservation  of  the  human 
race.  Socialist  proposals  do  not  meet  this  necessity.  In 
keeping  with  Socialist  principles  they  cannot  be  made 
to  meet  it.  For  those  principles  deny  God,  they  hold 
the  ordinances  of  society  to  be  unwarranted  and  unjust, 
and  they  regard  the  laws  of  nature  as  fluid  instead  of 
fixed  and  a  hindrance  to  man  only  because  of  his  igno- 
rance, fear,  and  abasement,  induced  through  the  arti- 
ficial restraints  imposed  by  religion,  the  family,  and  the 
State. 

Therefore,  the  Socialist  politic  to  revolutionize  so- 
ciety to  the  point  where  there  will  be  "  not  a  government 
of  persons  but  an  administration  of  things,"  appears  as 
a  menace  to  human  welfare,  threatening  the  permanence 
of  society,  making  for  the  destruction  of  civilization,  if 
not  of  the  human  race. 

II.    RECONSTRUCTION 

But  it  is  claimed  that  Socialism  is  reconstructive  as 
well  as  revolutionary,  and  that  its  reconstructive  aims 
go  to  make  up  its  politic,  are  inseparable  from  its  revo- 
lutionary proposals,  and  will  be  worked  out  simultane- 
ously with  them.  That  is  to  say,  while  the  present  order 
of  society  is  to  be  overthrown,  a  new  order  is  to  take 
its  place,  and  this  momentous  change  will  be  effected 
by  a  gradual  process  of  evolution,  of  which  the  Social- 
ist political  movement  is  the  expression.  It  is  claimed 
that  this  change  is  actually  in  process  now  as  a  result 
of  the  contradictory  or  negative  forces  that  present  so- 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  237 

ciety  has  generated ;  that  for  many  years  this  change  has 
been  more  or  less  perceptible,  but  of  late  it  has  become 
unmistakably  obvious. 

In  support  of  these  claims  it  is  pointed  out  that  gov- 
ernments the  world  over  are  gradually  extending  their 
authority  over  affairs  hitherto  regarded  as  private  and 
free  from  governmental  control,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  governments  are  becoming  more  responsive  to  the 
will  of  the  people.  Moreover,  it  is  urged,  the  marked 
tendency  of  modern  industry  is  Socialistic  in  character, 
though  not  in  purpose,  as  is  evidenced  by  the  great  com- 
binations that  have  become  common  in  modern  busi- 
ness. Now  Socialism  as  a  politic,  it  is  finally  urged, 
has  for  its  ultimate  aim  the  uniting  of  all  lines  of  in- 
dustry into  one  combination  and  the  management  of  the 
combination  by  the  government  and  the  control  of  the 
government  by  the  working  people,  who  will  be  the  only 
stockholders  in  the  combination  and  will  thus  direct  its 
operations  for  their  own  benefit  and  will  receive  its 
products  without  any  diminution  being  made  by  a  few 
capitalists  exacting  rents,  interest,  dividends,  and  other 
forms  of  profit.  In  other  words,  "  the  making  of  goods 
for  profit  shall  come  to  an  end  " ;  but  this  can  be  effected 
only  by  the  "  organization  of  society  upon  an  industrial 
basis,"  which  means  "  the  socialization  of  the  means  of 
production,  distribution,  and  exchange." 

To  be  somewhat  more  definite,  we  quote  from  Hill- 
quit's  Socialism  Summed  Up,  chapter,  "  Aims  of  So- 
cialism " :  "  The  Socialist  program  requires  the  public 
or  collective  ownership  and  operation  of  the  principal 
instruments  and  agencies  for  the  production  and  distribu- 
tion of  wealth  —  the  land, "mines,  railroads,  steamboats, 


238  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

telegraph  and  telephone  lines,  mills,  factories  and  mod- 
ern machinery.  This  is  the  main  program  and  the  ulti- 
mate aim  of  the  whole  Socialist  movement  and  the  po- 
litical creed  of  all  Socialists.  It  is  the  unfailing  test  of 
Socialist  adherence  and  admits  of  no  limitation,  exten- 
sion or  variation.  Whoever  accepts  this  program  is  a 
Socialist,  whoever  does  not  is  not."  In  almost  the  same 
language  do  all  Socialist  leaders  and  propagandists  and 
all  official  platforms,  national  and  international,  define 
the  aim  of  Socialist  politics  — "  public  ownership  and 
operation  of  the  instruments  for  the  production  and  dis- 
tribution of  wealth." 

This  aim  has  a  twofold  aspect.  In  so  much  as  it  pro- 
poses that  the  public  shall  own  the  instruments  of  wealth, 
it  is  chiefly  a  politic.  But  in  so  much  as  it  proposes  the 
collective  operation  of  those  instruments,  it  is  chiefly  an 
economic.  Only  the  political  aspect  will  be  treated  in 
this  chapter,  the  other  being  deferred  for  a  subsequent 
chapter. 

Two  important  questions  are  involved  in  the  political 
aspect:  (i)  exactly  what  is  it  proposed  that  the  public 
shall  own?  (2)  precisely  how  will  the  things  deter- 
mined on  be  acquired  by  the  public?  We  say  "  exactly  " 
and  "  precisely  "  with  studied  purpose ;  these  questions 
are  pre-eminently  practical  and  the  last  detail  is  im- 
portant. 

(i) 

As  to  exactly  what  it  is  proposed  that  the  public  shall 
own  there  is  a  diversity  of  opinion  among  Socialists  that 
is  not  warranted  by  their  economic  principle.  Hillquit 
limits  the  general  scope  of  public  ownership  to  the 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  239 

"principal  instruments  and  agencies  for  the  production 
and  distribution  of  wealth."  Then  he  specifies :  "  the 
land,  mines,  railroads,  steamboats,  telegraph  and  tele- 
phone lines,  mills,  factories  and  modern  machinery." 
He  adds  the  dogmatic  statement  that  this  program  "  ad- 
mits of  no  limitation,  extension  or  variation."  But  it  is 
obvious  that  Hillquit  would  not  be  bound  by  the  eight 
particulars  he  mentions.  There  are  many  means  for  pro- 
ducing and  distributing  wealth  that  are  not  comprised  in 
this  category,  among  them  some  of  the  most  reprehensi- 
ble known  to  modern  industry.  Hillquit  evidently  men- 
tions these  eight  only  by  way  of  a  suggestion  and  not 
as  a  specification  of  the  "  principal  instruments  and  agen- 
cies for  the  production  and  distribution  of  wealth." 

The  diversity  mentioned  as  existing  among  Socialists 
arises  from  the  use  of  the  word  "  principal "  to  specify 
what  means  for  production  and  distribution  shall  be 
owned.  The  word  does  not  occur  in  this  connection  in 
the  Communist  Manifesto  or  any  other  official  utterance 
of  Socialists,  nor  in  the  writings  of  Marx  or  Engels  or 
others  among  the  classical  authorities  of  Socialism.  Its 
use  probably  was  first  suggested  by  Spargo,  in  1906,  as 
a  result  of  the  vigorous  assertion  of  the  right  of  private 
property  by  "  captious  critics  "  and  to  avoid  the  point 
of  their  opposition  to  the  Socialist  aim.  But  Spargo, 
unlike  Hillquit,  refrained  from  the  use  of  the  word,  be- 
cause "  it  would  cause  confusion  to  readers  rather  than 
prove  enlightening,  since  it  would  convey  no  exact  mean- 
ing to  their  minds."  *  Since  the  Manifesto  specifies  "  all 
instruments  of  production  "  as  included,  and  practically 
all  other  Socialists  than  Hillquit  and  Spargo  unquali- 

1  The  Socialists,  Who  They  Are  and  What  They  Stand  For,  78. 


240  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

fiedly  define  their  aim  to  be  "  the  socialization  of  the 
means  of  production,  distribution,  and  exchange,"  the  So- 
cialist orthodoxy  of  the  qualification  "  principal "  is  open 
to  question. 

When  making  the  suggestion  above  noted,  Spargo 
adroitly  remarks :  "  To  avoid  captious  criticism,  it  is 
admitted  that  Socialism  does  not  involve  the  ownership 
of  all  means  of  production,  distribution,  and  exchange." 
This  admission  is  about  as  satisfactory  as  would  be  that 
of  one  accused  of  a  crime  who  admitted  he  was  not 
guilty.  To  determine  fairly  the  issue  raised  by  the  Hill- 
quit-Spargo  and  the  Marx-Engels  teachings  on  this  point, 
we  must  refer  to  their  economic  principle.  This  prin- 
ciple ascribes  all  the  evils  in  the  universe  to  the  "profit- 
idea  "  or  the  use  of  labor-power  to  produce  surplus  value. 
Therefore  the  logical  aim  of  Socialism  is  to  put  an  end 
to  the  control  of  labor-power  by  another  than  the  la- 
borer, to  abolish  the  relations  of  master  and  servant, 
of  employer  and  employe,  of  capitalist  and  workingman 
in  whatever  form.  But  these  relations  are  a  consequence 
of  one  person  owning  property  that  another  wants  to 
use.  Therefore,  to  accomplish  the  aim  of  Socialism,  the 
public  must  acquire  ownership,  not  necessarily  in  all  the 
means  producing  and  distributing  wealth,  nor  yet  merely 
in  the  principal  ones,  but  in  all  property  that  a  person 
can  own  while  it  is  used  to  his  advantage  by  another. 
Whatsoever  the  kind  of  property  or  thing,  if  it  can  be 
used  with  profit  or  advantage  to  the  owner  by  another 
than  the  owner,  the  Socialist  economic  requires  that  the 
ownership  of  the  individual  be  terminated. 

Of  course,  in  the  accomplishment  of  this  purpose,  the 
principal  instruments  for  production  and  distribution 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT          241 

would  be  the  first  to  be  acquired  by  Socialists,  since  they 
conceive  these  to  be  the  most  effective  in  the  "  system 
of  labor-exploitation."  But  that  would  only  limit  and 
would  not  stop  the  exploitation.  Those  who  still  owned 
property  that  others  could  use  would  only  redouble  their 
efforts  to  make  profits  by  what  was  left  to  them,  and 
sooner  or  later  all  the  means  not  only  for  the  produc- 
tion and  distribution  of  wealth,  but  for  the  exploitation 
of  labor-power, —  all  things  that  one  person  could  own 
and  secure  advantage  with  when  it  was  used  by  another, 
would  have  to  be  acquired  by  the  collective  body. 

In  arguing  that  the  ownership  of  all  means  for  pro- 
duction is  not  contemplated  by  Socialists,  Spargo  in- 
stances "  spades,  wheelbarrows,  jack-knives,  etc.,"  as 
means  of  production  that  "  it  is  ridiculous  to  suppose  that 
they  would  want  to  institute  public  ownership  and  con- 
trol of;  and  so,  too,  with  the  artist's  brushes,  the  small 
farmer's  farm,  and  a  hundred  other  things,  the  sociali- 
zation of  which  would  be  impossible  and  too  absurd  for 
anything  but  opera  bouffe  if  it  were  possible."  There 
will  be  few  to  differ  from  Spargo's  conclusion  that  such 
a  thing  is  impossible,  and  if  it  were  merely  "  supposed  " 
that  this  is  the  aim  of  Socialism,  it  would  be  a  ridiculous 
supposition  indeed.  If  Socialists  do  not  want  to  do  this 
thing,  as  Spargo  implies,  it  is  proof  that  they  are  not 
willing  to  stand  by  their  principles.  In  contemplation 
of  the  Socialist  economic  not  even  a  jack-knife  can  be 
owned.  For  the  owner  at  so  much  per  unit  of  time  could 
hire  another  to  use  this  simple  instrument  —  to  make 
smoking  pipes  out  of  cast-off  corn-cobs,  let  us  say, 
which  he  could  sell  at  a  profit,  and  thus  rob  the  poor 
workingman  of  the  fruits  of  his  toil.  But  if  this  could 


242  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

be  done  with  a  jack-knife,  what  could  not  be  done  with 
"the  small  farmer's  farm"?  Is  it  not  true  that  many 
of  our  money  kings  have  begun  with  means  quite  as  sim- 
ple as  a  jack-knife?  Do  Socialists  intend  to  set  an  all- 
seeing  eye  to  watch  over  the  career  of  each  individual 
and  say  to  him :  "  Thus  far  and  no  farther  "  ? 

If  the  Socialist  principle  of  economics  were  sound, 
if  the  theory  of  surplus  value  were  true,  if  the  class- 
struggle  idea  were  borne  out  by  the  facts  of  life,  noth- 
ing short  of  collective  ownership  of  everything  that  it 
is  possible  for  one  to  own  while  another  uses,  could 
remedy  existing  evils.  Such  unquestionably  was  the 
view  of  earlier  Socialists,  is  the  meaning  of  their  eco- 
nomic, and  probably  is  understood  by  most  Socialists 
to-day  to  be  the  aim  of  their  politic. 

But  while  probably  as  yet  the  view  of  the  minority 
only,  the  Hillquit-Spargo  teaching  on  this  point  is  rap- 
idly winning  favor  among  Socialists,  partly  because  it 
is  a  more  tactical  teaching  since  it  seems  to  avoid  the 
criticism  that  Socialism  would  abolish  property,  and 
partly  because  there  has  fallen  in  among  Socialists  a 
property-owning  class  that  has  some  measure  of  regard 
for  the  right  of  property.  If  the  increase  of  Socialists 
continues  along  this  line,  it  is  not  improbable  that  the 
Hillquit-Spargo  view  will  become  that  of  the  majority. 

While  this  change  of  purpose  seems  —  though  it  only 
seems  —  to  avoid  the  criticism  that  Socialism  denies  the 
right  of  property,  it  is  fairly  overwhelmed  with  the  diffi- 
culty foreseen  by  Spargo  in  determining  the  "  exact 
meaning "  of  the  word  principal  as  used  in  connection 
with  the  means  of  production  and  distribution  that  the 
collective  body  must  acquire.  At  the  risk  of  being 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  243 

tedious  we  are  disposed  to  pursue  this  important  matter 
to  the  last  detail,  but  shall  only  try  the  patience  of  the 
reader  to  the  extent  of  examining  the  eight  particulars 
mentioned  by  Hillquit  in  his  specifications  of  what  Social- 
ists propose  to  own  collectively. 

"The  land."  Is  all  land  included?  Then  Spargo  is 
in  error  when  he  says  that  "  it  is  inconceivable  that  the 
Socialists  will  ever  attempt  to  take  away  the  small 
farmer's  farm"  (The  Socialists,  79).  The  1908  plat- 
form specified  "  all  land,"  but  that  of  1912  only  "  land 
wherever  practicable  "  (another  phrase  having  no  "  ex- 
act "  meaning,  by  the  way).  Here  we  have  all  land,  the 
principal  land,  and  land  wherever  practicable  included  in 
the  land  to  be  collectively  owned,  then  an  additional  qual- 
ification excepting  the  small  farmer's  farm.  And  how 
small  would  be  the  small  farmer's  farm  ?  Does  "  the 
land  "  include  city  property, —  skyscrapers,  big  apartment 
houses,  great  tenements, —  private  residences,  the  modest 
cottage  with  the  stately  mansion?  If  the  line  be  drawn 
with  the  actual  residence  of  the  owner  —  and  where 
else  might  it  be  if  "  rents "  are  to  be  abolished  as  a 
form  of  surplus  value  —  then,  what  about  vacant  rooms 
in  such  residences?  Could  they  be  rented,  or  must  they 
stand  idle,  or  will  the  owner  be  required  to  apply  for  a 
new  residence  when  there  happens  a  marriage  or  a  death 
in  his  family  ?  There  are  literally  "  a  thousand  and 
one "  questions  pertinent  here,  and  they  are  practical 
questions  that  would  mean  a  positive  degree  of  happiness 
or  of  misery  in  the  way  they  are  answered  if  Socialism 
is  ever  anything  more  than  a  dream. 

"  Mines."  Are  all  mines  included  ?  In  the  coal  fields 
there  are  thousands  of  small  strip-pits  where  only  pick 


244  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

and  shovel  are  necessary  to  extract  the  black  diamonds, 
and  these  serve  as  the  only  means  of  livelihood  to  many 
people  and  as  a  great  source  of  comfort  to  many  more 
who  are  able  to  buy  only  the  inferior  coal  generally  de- 
rived from  this  source.  Something  like  this  holds  with 
respect  to  all  other  minerals.  Taken  all  in  all,  it  is  no 
exaggeration  to  say  that  there  are  hundreds  of  thousands 
for  whom  their  proprietary  rights  in  "  mines "  of  one 
kind  or  another  are  their  only  means  of  subsistence,  but 
who  in  the  sense  of  being  capitalists  must  be  classed  with 
the  smallest  of  small  farmers, —  will  these  be  deprived 
against  their  will  of  ownership  in  their  property?  If  so, 
it  is  a  pity;  but  if  not,  then  what  mines  is  it  proposed 
that  the  public  shall  acquire? 

"  Railroads,  steamboats,  telegraph  and  telephone  lines." 
In  the  State  of  Indiana  there  is  a  railroad  upon  which 
one  may  ride  the  length  of  its  lines  for  25  cents.  For 
six  dollars  one  may  charter  a  special  train  for  the  round 
trip  over  its  "  system."  It  is  presumable  that  if  wheel- 
barrows are  not  to  be  acquired  by  the  public,  this  rail- 
road also  would  be  excepted.  But  there  are  many  rail- 
roads that  are  scarcely  more  of  an  "  octopus "  than 
this  one,  and  which  are  the  property  of  workingmen,  if 
that  term  includes  all  who  must  work  in  order  to  live. 
Upon  all  the  rivers  of  the  country  are  to  be  found 
various  kinds  of  floating  vessels,  many  of  which  are  the 
sole  means  of  livelihood  for  their  owners.  Perhaps 
these  would  not  be  called  "  steamboats,"  but  they  are 
as  nearly  such  as  the  great  barges  and  scows  that  are 
owned  by  rich  capitalists.  Within  the  last  decade  or  so 
in  all  parts  of  the  country  there  have  been  "  neighbor- 
hood "  telephone  lines  constructed,  and  their  number  is 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  245 

increasing  rapidly,  though  they  are  operated  at  a  loss. 
Now,  are  railroads,  steamboats,  and  telephone  lines  such 
as  these  to  be  acquired  by  the  Socialist  State?  Surely 
not  But  where  will  the  line  be  drawn?  We  have  only 
touched  the  question;  for  between  the  highly  developed 
"  systems  "  and  the  crude  "  independents  "  that  exist  in 
these  industries,  there  is  a  countless  variety  of  mixed 
forms  in  which  they  are  carried  on,  and  it  is  necessary 
to  know  just  where  Socialists  propose  to  call  a  halt  in 
their  absorption  by  The  Great  State. 

And  of  the  remaining  particulars  in  Hillquit's  category 
this  is  equally  true.  In  "mills,  factories,  and  modern 
machinery,"  the  same  all  but  infinite  variety  in  forms  of 
industrial  activity  and  development  obtains ;  and  so  in 
all  other  industries  that  might  by  construction  or  amend- 
ment be  included  in  or  added  to  the  list.  In  how  far 
they  are  to  be  absorbed  or  left  free  by  the  proposed  new 
order,  is  a  question  that  cannot  be  avoided  if  the  Socialist 
proposals  are  to  be  considered  at  all.  Whether  Social- 
isdom  will  be  ushered  in  by  imperceptible  accretion,  by 
easy  stages  or  by  sudden  violence,  the  acquisition  of 
industries  by  the  collective  body  must  begin  somewhere, 
and  somewhere  stop,  and  the  inevitable  question  is  — 
where?  And  the  inevitable  result  of  the  question  is, 
not  an  answer,  but  confusion.  There  is  confusion 
among  the  proponents  of  Socialism,  and  worse  confusion 
among  their  followers,  and  when  this  question  is  sub- 
mitted to  the  whole  people  to  be  decided,  as  is  proposed, 
what  with  perhaps  a  thousand  industries  to  classify  and 
with  as  many  questions  of  detail  to  be  answered  for  each 
one,  there  will  be  confusion  such  as  never  before  existed 
in  the  world.  It  would  be  difficult  to  afflict  society  with 


246  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

a  greater  evil  than  the  state  of  chaotic  confusion  that 
must  certainly  result  when  the  people  come  to  consider 
the  broad  field  of  industry  and  life  and  determine  what 
instruments  and  agencies  for  the  production  and  distri- 
bution of  wealth,  short  of  the  whole,  it  is  necessary  or 
desirable  for  them  to  own. 

(2) 

Granting  that  it  would  somehow  be  determined  what 
property  the  public  should  acquire,  how  will  the  acquisi- 
tion be  effected?  As  to  this  question,  also,  there  exists 
a  diversity  of  opinion  among  Socialists.  One  says  they 
will  be  confiscated;  another  says  they  will  be  acquired 
by  competition;  another  says  the  owners  will  be  induced 
to  give  them  up  in  exchange  for  pensions;  another  says 
they  will  be  purchased  outright.  With  his  usual  direct- 
ness, Bax  says :  "  If  the  question  is  How  ?  the  answer 
is,  How  you  can."  A  Socialist,  N.  A.  Richardson,  has 
written  a  book  especially  treating  of  this  question: 
Methods  of  Acquiring  Our  Industries.  He  mentions 
the  four  methods  of  confiscation,  competition,  pension, 
and  purchase,  and  says :  "  No  others  have  been  sug- 
gested, doubtless  because  there  are  no  others;  that  our 
industries  must  be  acquired  through  application  of  one 
or  more  of  these  methods  is  apparent  to  all  students  of 
the  subject." 

The  confiscation  method  is  very  simple:  all  owners  of 
property  that  the  State  wants  will  be  dispossessed  sum- 
marily and  without  compensation.  This  method  is  the 
only  one  that  is  consistent  with  Socialist  principles.  In 
its  support,  Richardson  says  (op.  cit.,  4)  ;  "We  contend 
that  all  value  is  the  creature  of  labor, —  that  labor  alone 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  247 

can  create  value.  That  which  is  created  of  right  belongs 
to  the  creator.  To  confiscate  the  means  of  production 
is  at  its  worst  but  appropriating  to  public  use  that  which 
has  been  appropriated  to  private  use  —  but  confiscating 
the  confiscator  —  but  giving  back  to  the  producer  that 
which  has  been  filched  from  him  by  process  of  law." 
But  confiscation  is  so  repugnant  to  the  sense  of  common 
justice  obtaining  among  all  law  abiding  people  that  So- 
cialists have  been  compelled  to  suggest  other  methods 
as  a  matter  of  expediency,  and  hence,  some  of  them 
advocate  the  competitive  method. 

This  method  is  not  so  simple  as  the  other.  It  con- 
templates the  State  entering  the  field  of  industry  and 
competing  with  capitalists ;  the  government  would  con- 
duct its  enterprises  without  profit,  and  this  would  put 
an  end  to  the  dividends  of  private  enterprises  and  their 
owners  would  abandon  them  in  consequence.  The  advo- 
cates of  confiscation  call  this  method  an  "  artful  dodge." 
They  argue  that,  while  they  propose  to  confiscate  the 
property,  their  dissenting  comrades  would  confiscate  the 
value  of  the  property.  "  What  is  the  difference,"  they 
add  by  way  of  a  query,  "  between  taking  my  property 
and  taking  from  it  all  value  as  property?  Are  you  not 
plainly  trying  to  mislead  by  juggling  with  words?"  (op. 
cit.,  12).  It  may  be  said  further:  not  only  is  this  method 
a  kind  of  confiscation,  but  it  would  be  more  foolish  and 
more  cruel  than  plain  confiscation :  more  foolish  because 
it  calls  for  a  needless  expenditure  in  building  up  the 
competing  enterprises  and  in  maintaining  them  until  their 
object  is  accomplished;  more  cruel  because  the  owners 
of  the  enterprises  whose  destruction  is  determined  upon 
will  themselves  be  required  to  help  establish  and  support 


248  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

the  enterprises  that  are  directed  against  them  with  deadly 
purpose.  Moreover,  this  method  is  not  practicable.  To 
conduct  a  public  enterprise  so  as  to  prevent  private  enter- 
prises from  making  profits,  is  a  proposition  offering  so 
many  difficulties  that  its  undertaking  on  anything  like 
a  general  plan  is  altogether  unwarranted ;  while  perhaps 
one  is  hardly  justified  in  saying  this  could  not  be  done, 
it  is  wholly  gratuitous  to  say  that  it  could  be ;  experiment 
alone  would  determine.  But  experiment  in  a  single  line 
of  industry  would  not  suffice  for  all.  There  are  produc- 
tive, extractive,  constructive,  distributive  industries,  to 
mention  only  these,  each  requiring  different  kinds  as  well 
as  different  degrees  of  skill  and  intelligence  in  its  opera- 
tion, each  having  its  peculiar  "  technique  "  and  each  sub- 
ject to  different  laws  and  conditions  that  are  beyond 
human  control  or  regulation.  This  method,  therefore, 
apart  from  its  pronounced  injustice,  is  so  much  involved 
that  all  prudent  persons  must  withhold  from  it  their  sanc- 
tion. As  compared  with  the  confiscation  method  it  has 
little  to  distinguish  it  in  effect  and  nothing  to  give  it 
preference  in  application. 

The  third  method  suggested  offers  to  provide  a  life- 
pension  for  the  owners  of  property  the  public  would 
acquire.  The  orthodox  Socialist  objects  to  this  method 
because  "  these  pensions  must  be  paid  from  labor's 
product;  and  why  should  labor,  that  has  already  con- 
tributed its  countless  millions  for  the  support  of  the  idle 
rich,  continue  to  make  donations  for  that  purpose?"  (op. 
cit.,  28).  It  is  objectionable  to  the  non-Socialist  be- 
cause it  claims  a  birthright  for  a  mess  of  pottage;  con- 
trary to  Portia's  classic  utterance,  it  would  season,  not 
justice  but  injustice,  with  mercy;  confiscation  outright 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  249 

would  be  far  preferable  to  this  mock  charity  that  all 
self-respecting  persons  would  scorn  to  accept  in  lieu 
of  what  is  to  most  of  them  their  hardly  earned  fortune. 
The  impracticability  of  this  scheme  renders  it  further 
objectionable.  While  perhaps  a  few  thousand  persons 
own,  say  one-half  the  property  that  would  be  acquired, 
the  other  half  is  owned  by  many  millions.  There  are 
comparatively  few  persons  who  do  not  own  some  interest 
in  the  property  whose  acquisition  would  be  necessary, 
and  if  all  the  owners  are  to  be  pensioned  for  life,  or 
for  a  time,  it  is  open  to  question  whether  there  would 
be  enough  left  to  operate  a  single  line  of  industry  on 
a  national  scale.  So  unless  the  pensioners  were  required 
to  work  —  and  then  of  what  benefit  would  a  pension  be? 
—  our  great  systems  of  industry  would  be  paralyzed  with 
the  application  of  this  method.  It  cannot  be  profitably 
contended  in  this  connection  that  those  who  would  be 
pensioned  are  "  the  idle  rich."  Truth  to  say,  but  few  of 
the  rich  are  idle;  idleness  and  riches  are  scarce  more 
companionable  than  the  proverbial  "  fool  and  his  money." 
An  overwhelming  majority  of  the  persons  under  consid- 
eration are  neither  rich  nor  idle;  at  best,  they  are  only 
well-to-do;  many  of  them  are  poor;  they  are  practically 
all  workers,  among  the  most  industrious  and  the  most 
thrifty  people  in  the  land.  In  the  steam  railroad  com- 
panies of  the  United  States,  not  to  mention  electric 
roads,  there  are  nearly  five  hundred  thousand  stock- 
holders ;  to  say  that  ten  per  cent,  of  these  are  rich  would 
be  far  too  much ;  to  say  one  per  cent,  are  idle  would  be 
an  exaggeration;  one  per  cent,  doubtless  would  include 
all  of  the  first  class,  while  the  second  is  too  insignificant 
to  consider.  But  if  in  the  acquisition  of  a  single  line  of 


250  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

industry  practically  a  half  million  workers  are  to  be 
put  upon  a  pension,  who  can  doubt  that  the  wheels  of 
industry  will  slow  down,  if  they  do  not  stop,  when  the 
owners  in  all  of  the  "  principal "  industries  are  made 
recipients  of  the  public  bounty? 

Acquisition  by  purchase  is  the  fourth  method  sug- 
gested. It  brings  in  a  whole  train  of  difficulties.  Of 
first  importance  is  the  question  of  price.  Who  will  fix 
the  price  the  State  must  pay  for  stocks,  securities,  rail- 
roads, land,  timber,  mines,  smelters,  refineries,  mills,  fac- 
tories, farms,  shops,  machinery,  houses,  material,  etc., 
etc.?  The  present  owners  could  not  in  reason  be  per- 
mitted to  fix  the  price;  the  purchaser  could  not  in  justice 
be  permitted  to  do  it ;  there  is  no  encouragement  to  be- 
lieve the  two  could  agree  on  a  price.  But  "  purchase  " 
means  paying  a  fair  price,  and  here  is  a  serious  diffi- 
culty for  Socialists.  A  still  more  serious  difficulty  is 
that  of  payment.  If  adequate  prices  are  to  be  paid  for 
all  the  property  acquired,  bonds  must  issue,  for  there 
is  not  enough  money  in  the  whole  world  to  pay  for  the 
principal  industries  in  a  single  modern  country;  it  is 
doubtful  if  there  is  enough  gold  and  silver  in  the  world 
which,  made  into  money,  would  meet  this  emergency 
without  debasing  the  coinage,  and  that  would  only  be 
a  species  of  confiscation.  But  to  issue  bonds  for  the 
unheard-of  sum  that  would  have  to  be  paid  would  be  to 
saddle  upon  the  public  a  debt  that  it  must  stagger  under. 
During  the  existence  of  this  debt  the  relations  of  the 
two  classes  it  would  create  in  society  would  be  intoler- 
able. The  persons  who  are  now  propertyless  would  be 
virtually  slaves  under  the  yoke  of  this  obligation.  The 
persons  who  now  have  property  would  constitute  a  bond- 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  251 

holding  aristocracy,  surpassing  in  its  power  and  its  pos- 
sibilities all  the  aristocracies  that  have  been.  Nor  is 
there  any  assurance  that  this  state  of  affairs  would  be 
speedily  ended.  The  property  that  it  would  be  necessary 
for  the  public  to  acquire,  putting  it  at  the  minimum, 
represents  the  capitalized  energies  of  many  generations ; 
and  though  due  allowance  be  made  for  the  increased  pro- 
ductivity of  modern  methods  of  industry,  it  will  require 
many  generations  to  come  to  produce  the  tremendous 
values  represented  so  as  to  purchase  what  is  necessary 
at  a  fair  price.  Moreover,  as  fast  as  these  values  were 
paid  over  to  the  bondholders,  they  would  be  reinvested, 
and  the  conditions  the  first  purchase  was  made  to  abolish 
would  again  arise,  and  repeated  purchases  and  repeated 
bonding  would  be  necessary  until  there  no  longer  existed 
any  property  for  investment.  So  long  as  money  is  con- 
sidered as  having  purchasing  power,  the  grip  of  the 
property-owning  classes  on  society  cannot  be  loosed  by 
any  scheme  that  pays  over  to  them  value  for  value  the 
price  of  their  holdings,  and  in  this  light  acquisition  by 
purchase  appears  as  an  impossible  proposal.  But  if 
money  be  considered  as  losing  its  purchasing  power, 
whether  suddenly  or  gradually,  whether  in  the  sense 
that  it  is  itself  debased  or  in  the  sense  that  nothing  re- 
mains for  its  investment,  the  proposal  to  acquire  property 
by  "  purchase  "  appears  to  be  a  shallow  pretense,  not  to 
say  an  "  artful  dodge." 
(a)  A  Comment. 

Whether  or  not  the  four  methods  of  acquisition  ex- 
amined are  the  only  ones  that  have  been  proposed,  they 
are  the  only  ones  that  it  is  necessary  to  examine.  All 
supposable  methods  are  reducible  to  two  general  classes : 


252  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

confiscatory  and  compensatory;  and  one  or  the  other 
or  a  combination  of  the  two  clearly  must  be  adopted. 
It  may  not  be  said  with  assurance  which  of  these  is 
in  greater  favor  among  Socialists.  To  judge  from  their 
popular  propaganda  of  late  years,  it  seems  that  the  com- 
pensatory method  claims  the  more  uniform  adherence 
among  them;  but  to  judge  from  earlier  propaganda  and 
from  the  Socialist  fundamentals,  it  is  clear  that  the  con- 
fiscatory method  is  truer  to  their  purpose.  Distinguish- 
ing Socialism  from  Socialists,  whether  it  be  considered 
as  a  science  or  as  a  politic,  it  must  result  in  confiscation 
or  else  fail  of  result.  Not  only  does  Socialist  philosophy, 
as  economically  expressed,  require  this ;  but,  in  spite  of 
tactical  expressions  to  the  contrary,  one  can  hardly  es- 
cape the  conviction  that  the  underlying  sentiment  de- 
mands it,  and  it  is  certain  that  the  physical  facts  bearing 
on  the  question  make  it  necessary. 

Not  that  confiscation  could  be  effected  without  great 
difficulty ;  to  say  that  it  would  not  be  attended  with  strife 
and  bloodshed  is  to  say  more  than  human  nature  war- 
rants us  to  believe;  to  say  that  the  capitalists  who  are 
accused  of  having  built  up  a  perverted  civilization  for 
the  protection  of  their  interests,  will  suffer  their  interests 
to  be  ruined  while  they  still  control  their  power,  is  to 
impute  to  them  a  character  that  belies  the  central  theme 
of  the  whole  Socialist  movement. 

But,  though  involving  difficulties,  the  confiscatory 
method  does  not  involve  complications.  It  is  marked 
by  its  directness  and  simplicity,  and  if  the  right  of  prop- 
erty can  once  be  effaced  from  the  human  conscience,  the 
force  of  numbers  can  be  relied  on  to  put  it  into  effect. 
Hence,  it  is  pertinently  observed  by  La  Monte  that  "  re- 


AS  A  POLITICAL  MOVEMENT  253 

spect  for  the  '  sacred  rights  of  private  property '  is  the 
stone  wall  against  which  every  Socialist  agitator  is  con- 
tinually ramming  his  long  suffering  head."  And  hence, 
the  "  Great  Revolution,"  which  destroys  religion,  family, 
State,  and  private  property,  must  be  brought  to  its  final 
term  before  the  first  signal  effort  at  Socialist  reconstruc- 
tion can  be  undertaken,  before  public  ownership  in  the 
means  for  production,  distribution,  and  exchange  can 
reasonably  be  expected. 

That  this  is  a  remote,  not  to  say  impossible,  con- 
tingency has  already  been  observed.  But  this  is  not  a 
forbidding  aspect  to  Socialists,  in  whose  philosophy 
nothing  is  impossible  but  a  continuance  of  the  present 
order  of  society.  They  confidently  look  forward  to  the 
time  when  "to  speak  of  private  property  will  be  re- 
garded by  all  intelligent  persons  as  absurd  and  ridicu- 
lous ; "  and  while  in  their  platforms  and  their  programs 
they  make  many  specific  demands  that  are  plausible, 
and  some  that,  taken  alone,  are  not  to  be  condemned, 
the  public  is  strictly  cautioned  that  these  "  are  but  a 
preparation  of  the  workers  to  seize  the  whole  powers 
of  government  and  take  hold  of  the  whole  system  of 
industry  and  thus  come  into  their  rightful  inheritance," 
viz:  the  accumulated  wealth  of  the  world.  How  they 
would  use  this  vast  acquisition  is  matter  for  treatment 
under  the  head  of  Socialism  as  an  economic  movement. 


CHAPTER  THREE 
AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT 

I.    THE  OPERATION  OF  INDUSTRY 

The  Great  Revolution  being  accomplished,  and  the 
means  for  the  production,  distribution  and  exchange 
of  goods  in  society  being  collectively  owned,  Socialists 
would  undertake  the  work  of  operating  them.  This  is 
the  aim  of  the  Socialist  economic.  This  is  the  distinc- 
tive feature  of  Socialism  considered  as  a  proposed  society. 

If  mere  collective  ownership  were  the  extent  of  the 
Socialist  aim,  it  would  not  excite  grave  apprehension, 
provided  no  enforced  privation  of  natural  right  were 
threatened.  Truth  to  say,  the  ultimate  title  of  all 
property  is  now  recognized  as  being  in  the  State;  if 
one  dies  without  heirs  one's  property  escheats,  if  one 
uses  property  unlawfully  it  may  be  confiscated,  if  it 
is  necessary  for  public  use  it  may  be  condemned ;  escheat, 
confiscation,  and  eminent  domain  are  rights  of  the  State 
that,  in  addition  to  the  right  of  taxation,  all  civilized 
countries  have  recognized  and  enforced  since  the  time 
of  the  Romans,  the  Greeks,  Moses,  Hammurapi. 

But  collective  operation  is  a  different  matter.  Upon 
the  operation  or  use  of  property  the  human  race  depends, 
and  prudence  dictates  the  closest  scrutiny  of  the  methods 
proposed  for  the  collective  operation  of  the  principal 

254 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          255 

means  for  producing  and  distributing  wealth.  If  one 
be  indifferent  to  justice  and  right,  and  notably  credulous, 
details  about  the  establishment  of  Socialisdom  may  not 
be  required;  but  it  is  impossible  that  one  not  wholly 
blind,  and  in  a  way  perverted,  can  be  content  to  efface 
society  without  first  learning  in  detail  how  human  ex- 
istence is  to  be  afterwards  secured.  The  fact  that  no 
society  in  history  ever  undertook  to  operate  the  means 
for  producing  and  distributing  wealth  does  not  lessen 
the  importance  of  such  an  enquiry.  The  fact  that  hun- 
dreds of  small  communities  have  undertaken  this  with 
the  result  that  not  one  of  them  now  exists,  marks  it  as  all 
the  more  imperative. 

Socialists  treat  this  question  in  a  curious  way.  They 
indulge  in  the  most  extravagant  platitudes  imaginable. 
They  say  that  "  Socialism  would  inaugurate  a  new  era 
of  mechanical  progress,  the  possibilities  of  which  are 
undreamed  of  to-day,"  x  that  "  the  time  will  come  when 
the  work  of  the  world  will  be  done  by  simply  pressing 
a  button,"  z  that  in  Socialisdom  "  all  would  have  leisure 
and  be  educated ;  all  would  be  free,  and  happiness  would 
reign  supreme,"  3  that  "  Socialism  will  realize  the  golden 
age  of  peace,  plenty  and  justice  for  all,"  *  that  "  it  will 
bring  heaven  back  from  the  clouds  of  mythology  to 
the  earth  of  men  and  the  Sahara  of  to-day  will  become 
an  Eden  where  the  sweet  spirit  of  Comradeship  shall 
blossom  forth  like  the  fabled  rose  of  unfading  beauty,"  5 

1  The  Principles  of  Scientific  Socialism,  Vail,  226. 
zlb.,  198. 

3  Why  a  Woman  Should  be  a  Socialist,  Wiltshire,  22. 

4  The  Socialist  Movement,  Vail,  31. 
6  Where  We  Stand,  Spargo,  22. 


256  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

that  "every  child  will  have  a  better  education  than  the 
children  of  millionaires  have  now,"  6  that  "  every  child 
would  be  born  into  the  world  as  the  immediate  inheritor 
of  all  the  resources  of  nature  and  history,  of  art  and 
science,  of  industry  and  society,  of  inspiration  and  cul- 
ture," 7  and  "  then  for  the  first  time  man  will  be  finally 
marked  off  from  the  rest  of  the  animal  kingdom  and 
emerge  from  mere  animal  conditions  of  existence  into 
really  human  ones,"  8  and  "  there  will  be  nothing  that  the 
human  heart  can  long  for  that  it  will  not  have  and  noth- 
ing that  the  human  mind  can  conceive  that  it  will  not 
understand."  9 

All  this  is  very  delightful,  but  it  misses  the  question. 
What  we  want  to  know  is,  how  will  the  operation  of 
industry  be  conducted  in  Socialisdom?  If  we  lay  stress 
on  this  question  the  Socialists  should  be  the  last  to  ob- 
ject, for  it  is  they  who  teach  with  greatest  emphasis  that 
the  material  means  of  subsistence  is  the  only  object  in 
life  worth  while,  and  certainly  this  will  not  be  forthcom- 
ing unless  industry  be  carried  on  properly. 

The  question  has  two  main  aspects:  (i),  as  to  the  Di- 
vision of  labor,  and   (2),  as  to  the  Direction  of  labor, 
and  they  call  for  separate  treatment. 
i.  As  to  the  Division  of  Labor. 

How  will  labor  be  divided  in  Socialisdom?  Who  will 
fill  the  positions  of  honor?  Who  will  be  given  desirable 
occupations?  Who  will  perform  the  drudgery?  Of 
course,  when  "the  work  of  the  world  will  be  done  by 
simply  pressing  a  button,"  such  questions  will  not  be  per- 

6-  7  Folly  of  Being  Good,  Kerr,  cf.  17-20. 

8  Socialism,  Utopian  and  Scientific,  Engels,  134. 

9  "  Thesen,"  Stern,  cf .  25-43. 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          257 

tinent,  and  if  dreams  must  come  true,  Bebel's  "  scientists 
in  countless  numbers  "  doubtless  will  be  able  to  devise 
this  Aladdin's-lamp-like  device.  But  one  is  tempted  to 
think  it  will  require  a  little  time  to  do  this;  what  about 
the  meantime?  Lewis  tells  us  that  Curvier's  theory  of 
cataclysmic  evolution  is  repudiated  by  the  Socialists; 
Ladoff  says  that  "  advanced  Socialist  thinkers  do  not  ex- 
pect any  sudden  transformation  of  society;"  hence, 
when  contemplating  the  rapturous  prospect  of  the  Social- 
ist paradise,  one  may  venture  to  think  that  possibly  a 
generation  will  pass  "  before  all  these  things  be  done ; " 
and  it  should  scarce  be  accounted  a  "  mark  of  igno- 
rance "  if  one  diffidently  inquire  how  the  necessities  of 
life  will  be  provided  during  the  interim. 

One  answer  to  the  question  of  dividing  labor  is  very 
pleasing.  It  is  said :  "  Each  one  will  determine  for  him- 
self in  what  occupation  he  wishes  to  be  employed." 10 
Under  such  an  arrangement  doubtless  all  attractive  posi- 
tions would  be  filled,  but  how  about  the  "  hewers  of  wood 
and  drawers  of  water"?  Would  there  be  persons  so 
thirsting  for  self-abasement  that  they  would  voluntarily 
select  repulsive,  dirty,  blood-sweating  occupations  in 
preference  to  all  others?  Even  Bebel  could  not  believe 
this,  and  lest  he  be  accused  of  such  folly,  he  advances  a 
scheme  to  compel  the  performance  of  disagreeable  work. 

"At  stated  intervals,"  says  Bebel  (op.  cit.,  271  sq.), 
"  according  to  a  fixed  rotation,  all  members  of  a  certain 
department,  without  distinction  of  sex,  shall  undertake 
all  functions.  .  .  .  Large,  comfortable,  and  perfectly 
equipped  workshops  will  make  easy  for  all  persons  the 

10  Woman,  Bebel,  335.  Cf.  also,  "  Thesen,"  Stern,  37;  Social 
Democracy,  Kohler,  61 ;  Kautsky,  Social  Revolution. 


258  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

learning  of  all  trades  and  will  introduce  them  to  practice 
as  though  it  were  in  play."  This  seems  to  be  a  kind  of 
Kindergarten  plan,  except  that  it  is  coercive,  "  fixed." 
It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how  the  rotations  are 
to  be  thus  prescribed  when  there  will  not  be  a  "govern- 
ment of  persons."  But  granting  it  would  be  done,  then 
all  persons,  "  without  distinction  of  sex,"  would  in  their 
turn  become  ditch-diggers,  street-cleaners,  hod-carriers, 
hostlers,  scavengers,  and  so  forth,  not  voluntarily,  but  in 
"  fixed  "  order.  It  is  difficult  to  credit  Bebel  with  the  be- 
lief that  under  such  a  plan  "  countless  numbers  of  scien- 
tists and  scholars "  would  arise,  when  perhaps  in  the 
midst  of  his  crowning  experiment  the  chemist  would  be 
sent  to  cart  off  refuse,  or  with  his  patient's  life  hang- 
ing by  a  thread,  the  doctor  would  be  set  to  work  with 
pick  and  shovel,  while  the  blacksmith  and  the  butcher,  it 
may  be,  would  be  summoned  to  take  their  places;  when 
the  brick-layer  might  be  substituted  for  the  architect, 
the  mortar-mixer  for  the  mural  decorator,  the  janitor  for 
the  pedagogue,  the  "  devil "  for  the  editor,  etc.,  etc. 
Indeed  to  one  who  is  aware  of  the  time,  the  labor,  the 
patience,  the  privation,  the  repeated  trials,  the  repeated 
failures,  the  multiplied  hardships  that  go  to  make  up 
skilled  proficiency  in  any  trade  or  profession,  Bebel's 
rotation  plan  seems  so  nonsensical  that  it  is  hard  to  be 
persuaded  that  its  advocates  are  altogether  free  from 
censurable  motives  in  suggesting  it. 

Other  plans  have  been  suggested.  In  Looking  Back- 
ward, Bellamy  suggests  two  that  appear  to  be  widely 
favored  among  Socialists.  In  the  first  of  these  it  is  sup- 
posed that  all  persons  will  apply  for  the  work  most  to 
their  choice;  but  if  the  number  of  applicants  for  one 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT         259 

occupation  be  too  many,  and  those  for  another  too  few, 
the  labor-time  of  the  one  would  be  lengthened  and  that 
of  the  other  shortened  until  a  suitable  division  is  effected. 
That  is  to  say,  by  imposing  a  burden  on  the  naturally  de- 
sirable occupations  that  would  render  them  more  for- 
bidding than  those  naturally  forbidding,  the  happy  citi- 
zens of  Socialisdom,  compelled  to  work,  would  choose 
the  least  of  two  evils  and  voluntarily  engage  in  pursuits 
for  which  they  had  no  liking.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  not 
every  one  is  able  to  discern  the  irresistible  charm  in  an 
arrangement  so  felicitous;  and  evidently  Bellamy  feared 
as  much  when,  like  Bebel,  he  suggested  a  second  scheme. 

According  to  the  second,  if,  notwithstanding  the  care- 
ful regulation  of  labor-time,  there  should  still  be  too  few 
applicants  for  the  drudgery  work,  the  "  authorities " 
would  declare  some  special  honor  for  such  as  take  up  the 
neglected  occupations ;  e.g.,  "  they  would  be  proclaimed 
deserving  of  the  gratitude  of  the  entire  country."  This 
plan  of  the  brilliant  novelist  does  not  evince  the  genius 
of  the  first.  It  contradicts  the  Socialist  teaching  that 
there  will  be  no  classes  or  class  distinctions  in  the  new 
society.  It  admits  too  much  by  admitting  that  Socialism 
may  reduce  the  majority  of  persons  to  so  sad  a  plight 
that,  contrary  to  the  truth,  they  would  be  willing  to  pro- 
claim their  occupations  less  honorable  than  those  so  mean 
that  they  had  been  declined  for  their  repulsiveness.  It 
assumes  too  much  in  assuming  that  there  will  ever  be  per- 
sons simple  enough  to  be  deceived  by  a  subterfuge  so 
manifest ;  even  the  Great  Revolution  will  scarcely  change 
the  prevailing  belief  in  the  physical  fact  that  "  The  rose 
by  any  other  name  will  smell  as  sweet." 

Another  plan  often  suggested,  sometimes  as  a  substi- 


260  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

tute  for,  and  sometimes  in  connection  with,  the  labor- 
time  plan,  is  to  regulate  the  pay  for  labor  according  to 
the  attractiveness  or  the  repugnancy  of  the  occupation, 
the  most  attractive  affording  the  least  and  the  most  re- 
pugnant the  greatest  pay,  so  that  the  scavenger's  job 
likely  would  be  the  most  lucrative  in  society.  But,  aside 
from  the  striking  injustice  of  this  plan  and  its  stultifying 
effect  upon  the  individual  aspirations  that  make  for  up- 
lift, of  what  benefit  to  the  workman  would  be  his  in- 
creased reward?  He  could  not  consistently  be  permitted 
to  acquire  more  property  than  he  could  use,  and  in  com- 
mon with  all  other  citizens,  he  would  be  entitled  to  all  he 
could  use  if  he  showed  a  willingness  to  work  regardless 
of  the  kind  of  labor  he  performed;  what  inducement, 
therefore,  would  be  a  higher  wage  for  him  to  undertake 
the  most  repulsive  duties  in  preference  to  the  most  at- 
tractive ? 

It  is  suggested  by  some  Socialists,  who  doubtless  rea- 
lize that  no  plan  yet  imagined  even  approaches  a  solution 
of  the  difficulty,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  solve  it  because 
it  will  solve  itself  with  the  advent  of  Socialism.  Three 
inconsistent  reasons  are  assigned  for  this  conclusion  on 
their  part.  It  is  said  first,  that  owing  to  the  rapid  inven- 
tion of  new  mechanical  power  and  processes,  all  dis- 
agreeable work  will  be  performed  by  machinery ;  second, 
that  public  opinion  will  be  so  powerful  that  no  per- 
son can  withstand  its  impulses,  and  since  the  need  for 
workers  in  any  occupation  would  be  reflected  by  public 
opinion,  the  response  on  the  part  of  citizens  would  auto- 
matically correspond,  and  there  would  never  be  too  many 
or  too  few  applicants  in  any  occupation ;  finally,  that  hu- 
man nature  will  be  so  ennobled  that  selfishness  will  not 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          261 

exist,  and  instead  of  being  all  centered  in  his  own  petty 
affairs,  each  person  will  be  absorbed  with  the  affairs  of 
society  and  consumed  with  the  desire  to  serve  society's 
interests,  and  no  occupation  will  be  thought  forbidding  if 
the  interests  of  society  make  it  necessary.  Spargo, 
Kautsky,  and  Morris  are  chief  among  those  who  have 
made  these  random  guesses.  They  scarce  deserve  com- 
ment. They  are  too  obviously  the  outcome  of  a  hopeless 
situation  to  be  taken  seriously.  They  are  so  contrary  to 
the  common  observation  and  experience  of  mankind,  that 
only  a  mind  in  desperate  straits  would  think  of  them. 

But  supposing  that,  through  some  inducement  or  by 
some  force  not  exactly  definable,  the  enviable  citizens  of 
Socialisdom  will  become  eager,  or  at  least  willing,  to  un- 
dertake any  occupation  assigned  to  them,  then  we  must 
consider  the  question :  How  would  it  be  determined  what 
number  of  workmen  would  be  needed  in  a  particular  in- 
dustry of  a  certain  section  at  a  given  time?  To  put  this 
in  the  concrete:  How  would  it  be  learned  what  number 
of  men  —  and  women,  be  it  marked  —  would  be  required 
during  the  autumn  season  to  mine  the  necessary  coal 
from  the  various  fields  in  the  country?  If  too  many 
workmen  are  set  at  this  task,  other  industries  must  suf- 
fer, and  if  too  few,  the  people  would  fall  victims  to  the 
cold  of  winter.  It  may  not  be  said  that  the  supply  of 
labor  necessary  in  Socialisdom  could  be  gauged  from 
present  conditions.  For  under  these  the  coal  industry  is 
regulated  by  competition  in  every  detail,  —  the  miner, 
the  operator,  the  carrier,  the  dealer,  the  drayman,  the 
consumer,  are  in  keen  competition  with  others  of  the 
same  class.  And  we  may  expect  that,  when  competition 
is  abolished,  the  consumer  will  not  be  quite  so  economi- 


262  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

cal,  the  drayman  not  quite  so  diligent,  the  dealer  not 
quite  so  considerate,  the  carrier  not  quite  so  prompt,  the 
miner  not  quite  so  energetic,  the  operator  not  quite  so 
farseeing,  and  that  on  the  whole  there  will  be  a  marked 
difference  in  the  supply  of  labor  required  to  operate  this 
line  of  industry  to  the  eminent  satisfaction  of  all  the 
people;  and  when  it  is  considered,  also,  that  women  are 
to  be  given  places  beside  the  men,  and  that  perhaps  all 
workers  will  be  rotated  according  to  some  plan  or  other, 
it  appears  there  will  be  so  considerable  a  difference  that 
present  conditions  would  not  furnish  the  remotest  basis 
for  a  calculation  in  the  matter. 

What  in  this  respect  is  true  of  the  coal  industry  and 
of  other  extractive  industries,  is  also  true  of  the  manu- 
facturing industries,  and  perhaps  in  a  more  startling  de- 
gree. Consider  the  manufacture  of  cotton  cloth.  There 
are  the  planting  and  the  cultivation  of  the  cotton  crop, 
the  gathering  of  the  bolls,  the  ginning  and  baling  of  the 
raw  material,  the  cleaning,  carding  and  spinning,  the 
weaving,  dyeing  and  stamping;  then  the  distribution  to 
the  various  sections  where  needed.  Next  must  follow 
the  fashioning  of  the  cloth  for  use  in  compliance  with  the 
requirements  of  consumers,  the  selecting,  patterning, 
cutting,  sewing,  fitting,  trimming.  What  imaginable 
method  of  dividing  the  labor  force  of  the  country  would 
comprehend  all  of  these  various  functions  and  processes 
and  so  distribute  the  laborers  that  there  would  be  neither 
too  many  nor  too  few  connected  with  any  phase  of  the 
industry  ? 

We  have  only  touched  upon  one  item  each  in  two  of 
the  elemental  necessities  of  life,  which  comprise  numer- 
ous items,  and  we  find  the  difficulties  of  dividing  the 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          263 

labor  force  by  arbitrary  rule  to  be  insurmountable.  If 
we  consider  the  production  of  food  in  all  of  its  number- 
less varieties  and  forms,  we  see  those  difficulties  multi- 
plied, and  the  bare  existence  of  mankind  becomes  in- 
volved with  uncertainty  and  doubt.  The  necessity  for 
providing  adequate  shelter  for  all  persons  increases  the 
difficulties  and  makes  the  case  all  the  more  hopeless  in 
its  impossibilities.  And  yet,  we  have  only  considered  the 
matters  of  food,  fuel,  clothes,  and  shelter,  saying  nothing 
of  the  endless  catalogue  of  things  other  than  these  which 
must  be  provided  in  modern  civilized  life  and  which  are 
not  wholly  wanting  nowadays  among  the  poorest.  Can 
any  person  trust  the  solution  of  these  difficulties,  which 
involve  the  security  of  future  generations,  if  not  our 
own,  to  those  who  do  nothing  but  loudly  affirm  that 
"  Socialism  will  provide  such  an  abundance  of  all  things 
as  never  existed  in  the  world,"  without  bringing  upon 
himself  the  just  criticism  of  being  wantonly  reckless  of 
his  own  as  well  as  society's  interests?  Will  any  per- 
son suffer  himself  to  be  turned  away  in  confusion  from 
an  examination  of  this  question  by  the  complacent  asser- 
tion of  Socialists  that  it  is  a  mark  of  ignorance  to  ask  for 
details  ? 
2.  As  to  the  Direction  of  Labor. 

But  if  it  be  granted  that,  through  some  plan  not  yet 
imagined,  the  division  of  labor  will  be  effected  satis- 
factorily in  Socialisdom,  there  arises  the  further  ques- 
tion: How  will  it  be  directed?  No  doubt  the  direction 
of  labor  will  then  be  as  necessary  as  it  is  now.  Direction 
is  necessary  to  the  simplest  motion ;  there  is  no  human 
action  that  is  not  directed  by  the  human  brain.  So  long 
as  the  act  of  one  person  has  no  immediate  connection 


264  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

with  that  of  another,  one's  own  brain  directs  the  act. 
But  when  the  acts  of  two  or  more  persons  are  connected 
in  their  immediate  and  expected  consequences,  the  direc- 
tion of  another  than  the  actor  comes  into  play.  A 
forger,  in  making  a  tool  for  his  own  use,  requires  no 
superintendent;  but  one  making  a  part  for  a  machine  of 
many  parts,  the  other  parts  of  which  are  being  made  by 
others,  must  follow  the  direction  of  the  master  mechanic. 
No  amount  of  intelligence  or  good  intention  on  the  part 
of  the  workmen  can  dispense  with  the  necessity  for 
directivity  in  production,  and  it  is  of  the  utmost  import- 
ance to  know  how  Socialists  would  provide  this  essential 
in  their  proposed  society. 

One  very  simple  plan  is  proposed  by  them :  "  The  la- 
borers of  each  department  will  choose  their  own  superin- 
tendents," says  Bebel  (op.  cit.,  335).  But  this  is  not 
practical.  Laborers  are  not  capable  of  judging  the  two 
necessary  qualifications  of  competency  and  reliability  in 
directors.  Nor,  indeed,  is  any  class  of  persons  capable 
of  doing  this.  Directive  ability  is  a  peculiar  gift;  it  is 
not  easily  defined  or  described,  and  it  is  rarely  if  ever 
discerned  except  by  its  achievements.  Mere  executive 
ability  perhaps  could  safely  be  left  to  the  selection  of  the 
workmen,  but  this  falls  short  of  a  solution  of  the  diffi- 
culty. When  it  is  said  that  laborers  will  choose  their 
own  superintendents,  if  it  is  meant  only  that  they  will 
select  their  own  taskmasters,  it  is  very  little  to  say,  but  if 
more  than  this  is  meant,  it  is  too  much  to  say.  Suppose, 
by  way  of  applying  this  plan,  that  a  number  of  factories, 
warehouses,  etc.,  is  to  be  erected  in  various  sections  of 
Socialisdom.  There  would  be  required  for  this  work  a 
superintendent  of  construction,  an  engineer,  an  architect, 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          265 

a  master  mechanic,  and  various  other  heads  of  depart- 
ments; there  would  also  be  required  like  functionaries 
for  that  part  of  the  work  in  each  section.  Not  consider- 
ing the  ordinary  taskmasters,  the  number  of  superiors 
required  for  such  an  undertaking  would  be  exceedingly 
great,  and  the  most  trying  demagogue  would  hardly 
advance  the  contention  that  their  selection  could  pru- 
dently be  left  with  the  choice  of  the  laborers.  How,  then, 
would  they  be  selected?  Granting  it  could  be  done  in 
the  one  instance,  what  if  at  the  same  time  a  vast  irriga- 
tion project  were  undertaken,  a  great  field  for  reclama- 
tion service  were  reopened,  a  large  plan  of  reforestration 
were  to  be  carried  out,  an  extensive  line  of  railroad  were 
to  be  laid,  an  interminable  network  of  metal  roads  were 
to  be  built, —  would  the  same  authority  be  required  to 
determine  the  competency  and  the  reliability  of  the  count- 
less directive  functionaries  necessary  for  these  enter- 
prises? 

But  it  is  needless  to  enter  into  speculation  as  to  the 
direction  of  these  enterprises  that  Socialists  set  out  as 
desirable  and  as  part  of  their  program.  The  mere  duty 
of  carrying  on  production  so  as  to  sustain  the  various  lines 
of  industry  on  their  present  scale  offers  enough  difficulty, 
without  anticipating  industrial  expansion.  To  accomplish 
this  very  necessary  task  would  involve  the  exercise  of  the 
most  tremendous  powers,  calling  for  the  highest  degree 
of  knowledge,  skill,  judgment,  tact.  It  is  foolish  to  talk 
about  the  whole  people  selecting  the  directive  superin- 
tendents of  industry.  It  would  be  dangerous  to  our  lib- 
erties to  constitute  a  commission  for  this  purpose.  Its 
power  would  be  a  power  for  evil  as  well  as  for  good, 
and  before  a  prudent  people  would  constitute  it,  some 


266  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

assurance  would  be  required  that  this  unprecedented 
power  would  not  be  used  for  evil  as  well  as  for  good. 
This  assurance  is  not  forthcoming.  We  commend  the 
words  of  the  Socialist,  H.  G.  Wells,  in  this  connection: 
"  Any  step  towards  a  collective  organization  of  society 
may  be  a  step  toward  the  control  of  our  lives  by  a  nar- 
row-minded, cramping,  tyrannous,  and  in  all  probability 
dishonest  bureaucracy.  It  is  idle  to  pretend  that  this 
probability  has  been  in  any  way  disposed  of  by  the  So- 
cialist. It  has  not.  The  contemporary  Socialist  has  still 
to  show  that  such  a  tyranny  is  improbable.  As  a  So- 
cialist, I  think  he  can  do  so,  but  I  do  not  think  he  has 
done  so."  (Social  Democracy,  H.  G.  Wells,  21.)  This 
candid  writer  then  proceeds  to  outline  what  he  imagines 
to  be  a  satisfactory  guaranty  against  Socialist  tyranny, 
and  a  contemporary  Socialist  says  that  no  man  who 
understands  liberty  or  toleration  could  live  in  the  society 
he  describes ;  "  it  would  be  hell." 

But  passing  the  danger  to  human  liberty  involved  in 
the  lodgment  of  this  incomprehensible  power  in  the 
hands  of  less  than  the  whole  people,  let  us  consider  more 
closely  its  effect  not  on  human  happiness  but  on  hu- 
man existence.  It  may  be  said  that  if  this  plan  would 
infallibly  make  for  greater  efficiency  in  production,  doubt- 
less there  are  not  a  few  who  would  be  willing  to  risk 
its  transgressions  of  their  liberties,  trusting  to  the  "  womb 
of  time  "  to  bring  forth  some  expedient  to  safeguard  them. 
But  if  it  appears  that  under  such  a  fearful  power  not  only 
human  liberty  would  be  insecure  but  human  life  would 
be  uncertain,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  even  the  mal- 
contents of  existing  society  would  wittingly  invite  the 
change  proposed. 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          267 

Human  life  is  uncertain  where  the  production  of  the 
necessities  of  life  is  not  assured.  This  cannot  be  as- 
sured where  the  efficiency  that  directs  the  process  of 
production  is  doubtful.  The  chief  consideration  at  this 
point,  therefore,  is  not  the  honesty  or  the  good  inten- 
tions of  the  central  authority  in  Socialisdom,  but  its  abil- 
ity. It  must  have  the  ability  to  select  competent  and 
reliable,  and  in  many  cases  highly  specialised  and 
specially  gifted  directors,  managers,  superintendents, — 
not  in  just  one  or  two  or  several,  but  in  all  lines  of  indus- 
try. It  must  have  the  ability  to  discern  and  judge  of 
ability  and  to  determine  the  highest  order  of  ability  ob- 
tainable,—  not  in  one  person,  one  profession  or  one  occu- 
pation, but  in  all.  Moreover,  it  must  be  able  to  secure 
the  application  in  its  highest  efficiency  of  the  ability  it 
determines  upon.  Nothing  short  of  this  can  secure  that 
degree  of  efficiency  which  on  the  whole  characterizes  the 
present  process  of  production,  less  than  which  would  re- 
sult in  want  if  not  starvation  for  people  beyond  num- 
ber. Such  an  authority  could  not  be  constituted.  The 
known  limitations  of  human  capacity  forbid  any  other 
conclusion  being  in  all  sincerity  reached. 

But  a  contrary  view  is  expressed  by  Socialists.  They 
affirm  that  "  it  is  altogether  useless  to  say  that  an  enter- 
prise cannot  be  managed  by  society  when  it  is  being  man- 
aged by  a  group  of  capitalists."  (Vail's  Principles,  27.) 
This  statement  misses  the  point.  Capitalists  are  not  effi- 
cient because  they  are  capitalists;  they  are  capitalists, 
as  a  rule,  because  they  are  efficient.  So,  the  members  of 
a  group  acting  as  a  unit  are  not  efficient  because  they 
act  as  a  unit ;  they  act  as  a  unit  because  they  are  efficient. 
Observation  and  experience  remove  all  doubt  on  this 


268  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

score.  Capitalists,  both  large  and  small,  fail;  they  fail 
singly  and  in  groups;  they  fail,  not  for  lack  of  capital 
or  of  co-operation,  but  for  lack  of  competent  and  re- 
liable management  in  their  business.  Lack  of  co-opera- 
tion may  be  an  occasion  for  their  failure  and  lack  of 
capital  a  test,  but  neither  is  ever  a  cause.  In  the  last 
analysis,  all  unsuccessful  enterprises  are  unsuccessful  for 
the  want  in  some  particular  of  thorough  directive  ability. 
The  particular  may  not  be  definitely  known,  even  to  the 
insolvent,  of  whom  it  is  not  uncommonly  said,  "  he  was 
broke  before  he  knew  it " ;  but  the  invariable  law  of  com- 
petition is  to  eliminate  the  unfit  from  the  industrial  field 
and  to  yield  to  the  fit  exactly  that  measure  of  control 
they  are  fitted  to  sustain. 

Competition  unfailingly  registers,  in  all  their  bearings, 
the  mistakes  and  the  shortcomings  of  each  person  within 
its  domain,  and  with  stern  precision  it  assesses  the 
penalty  of  financial  loss  for  each  delinquency  suffered  to 
exist.  So  long  as  the  delinquent  can  bear  his  repeated 
losses,  he  remains  in  the  field,  but  when  the  penalties 
have  exhausted  his  resources,  he  is  automatically  elimi- 
nated. Since  the  capital  of  all  individuals  is  limited, 
competition  thus  sooner  or  later  infallibly  ejects  the  unfit 
from  the  field  of  industry  and  gradually  brings  its  direc- 
tion and  control  to  the  highest  state  of  efficiency  com- 
patible with  human  nature. 

This  efficiency  is  not  personal ;  it  is  characteristic.  It 
is  not  the  birthright  of  any  one,  or  of  any  class,  but  is 
the  unerring  mark  and  measure  of  thorough-going  abil- 
ity which  is  only  discernible  when  brought  out  by  effort 
and  achievement.  Hence,  it  follows,  that  in  Socialis- 
dom,  where  there  would  be  no  competition,  where  the 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          269 

collective  body  would  be  the  only  capitalist  and  would 
have  unlimited  capital  and  could  suffer  no  loss  to  a  rival, 
inefficiency  could  not  be  automatically  penalized  and 
ultimately  eliminated,  and  efficiency,  instead  of  being 
Characteristic,  would  be  personal,  and  like  all  traits  per- 
sonal, would  be  subject  to  abuse  and  error,  an  object 
of  deceit  and  intrigue,  a  cause  for  dissension  and  strife, 
a  prey  for  all  the  weaknesses  and  imperfections  of  human 
nature.  Seriously  to  consider  making  any  body  of  men 
the  judge  and  final  arbiter  of  the  competency  and  re- 
liability of  the  directors  and  managers  of  the  entire 
process  of  the  world's  production  and  thus  making  the 
existence  of  the  human  race  dependent  upon  its  dictates, 
bespeaks  for  human  nature  and  human  capacity  a  trust 
and  a  confidence  that  history,  experience,  and  right  reason 
all  forbid. 

In  objection  to  these  conclusions  it  is  urged  that  States 
and  municipalities  frequently  engage  in  enterprises  re- 
quiring directive  ability  and  they  do  not  find  the  diffi- 
culties suggested  to  be  insuperable.  The  force  of  this 
objection,  however,  is  only  apparent.  First,  because  com- 
petition has  set  the  seal  of  efficiency  upon  certain 
persons  who  by  what  they  have  achieved  are  known  to 
the  industrial  world  to  possess  the  requisite  ability. 
Second,  because  competition  still  exists,  and  in  its  field 
the  unfit  are  still  being  eliminated  by  their  losses  and 
the  fit  are  still  being  marked  by  their  achievements.  As 
a  result  of  these  conditions,  the  public  authorities  are 
able  to  select  persons  of  directive  competency  from  those 
known  to  be  competent  and  to  judge  of  the  application 
of  their  ability  by  their  achievements  as  compared  with 
the  achievements  of  others  in  the  competitive  world.  In 


270  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

fine,  the  efficiency  of  the  management  of  public  enter- 
prises is  known  and  regulated  by  comparison  with  the 
outside  world.  But  in  the  contemplation  of  Socialisdom 
we  may  not  consider  an  "  outside,"  and  therefore,  the 
successful  conduct  of  such  enterprises  of  the  State  as  in 
rare  instances  have  been  successful,  offers  no  solution  of 
the  difficulty, —  is  not  a  step  in  the  direction  of  a  solu- 
tion. 

Nor  does  a  solution  seem  in  any  way  possible  with 
competition  destroyed.  Directive  ability  must  be  deter- 
mined automatically,  as  at  present,  or  it  must  be  left 
to  the  erring,  weak,  not  always  unbiased  and  sometimes 
vicious,  judgment  of  men  to  determine.  Socialists  con- 
demn the  existing  method  without  reserve,  but  they  fail 
to  suggest,  even  on  paper,  how  the  other  can  be  applied 
with  hope  or  promise  or  intelligence ;  or  without  mistake, 
abuse,  injustice,  favoritism  and  oppression. 

II.    THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  GOODS 

The  Socialist  aim  with  respect  to  the  distribution  of 
goods  in  Socialisdom  is  expressed  in  a  formula  adapted 
by  Marx  from  Utopian  writers  (perhaps  original  with 
Saint-Simon)  :  "  From  each  according  to  his  ability;  to 
each  according  to  his  needs."  It  is  said  that  this  aim  will 
be  the  governing  principle  of  distribution  from  the  be- 
ginning of  Socialisdom,  although  it  is  not  contended  that 
it  will  be  applied  perfectly  until  the  whole  of  society 
is  entirely  free  from  the  "  perverting  "  influences  of  exist- 
ing civilization. 

The  formula  reads  well.  Its  application  is  a  different 
matter.  It  calls  forth  three  pertinent  questions:  (i), 
as  to  the  needs  of  society;  (2),  as  to  the  needs  of  each 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          271 

person;  (3),  as  to  the  ability  of  each  person;  —  how  will 

these  be  determined? 

i.  As  to  the  Needs  of  Society. 

The  amount  of  goods  that  will  be  required  by  the  whole 
society  is  of  first  and  chief  concern.  It  would  be  out 
of  the  question  to  ascertain  the  needs  of  each  person 
before  having  provided  the  means  to  satisfy  them.  To 
satisfy  one's  needs,  the  things  needed  must  be  supplied 
when  they  are  needed.  If  they  must  be  made  after  the 
necessity  appears,  they  may  be  entirely  needless  when 
they  are  furnished.  In  order  to  make  the  Socialist  for- 
mula nearly  adequate,  therefore,  the  needs  of  the  whole 
society  must  be  anticipated. 

But  how  can  the  needs  of  a  society  be  anticipated? 
If  a  common  dress,  a  common  diet,  a  common  rule  of 
life  be  imposed  upon  its  members,  as  in  communal  so- 
cieties, their  ordinary  necessities  could  be  calculated  with 
mathematical  nicety.  And  if  the  Socialist  aim  were 
frankly  to  reduce  social  existence  to  such  a  condition, 
its  formula  would  not  be  impossible  of  application.  But 
Socialists  are.  the  first  to  repudiate  such  an  aim.  They 
say  that  Socialism  is  not  Communism  and  Socialisdom 
would  not  be  a  communal  society.  This  makes  their 
formula  mathematically  impossible  because  the  character- 
istics that  go  to  make  up  individuality  defy  mathematical 
calculation  and  the  necessities  they  call  forth  cannot  be 
estimated  in  advance. 

If  there  is  no  mathematical  solution  of  this  prob- 
lem, how,  then,  can  it  be  solved?  It  is  the  opinion  of 
some  Socialists  that  a  solution  is  not  called  for,  that  in 
Socialisdom  the  needs  of  society  will  continue  to  be  met 
as  they  are  now.  This  is  not  a  thoughtful  opinion.  So- 


272  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

cialism  would  not  be  Socialism  if  competition  were  ad- 
mitted in  its  scheme.  But  in  gauging  the  necessities  of 
existing  society,  competition  is  the  all-important  factor. 
It  gauges  demand  no  less  than  supply.  It  does  more 
than  gauge,  it  regulates.  Competition  even  creates  de- 
mand, though  it  is  more  generally  created  by  demand. 
A  few  years  since  there  was  no  demand  for  "  breakfast 
foods,"  but  now  this  article  of  diet,  thanks  to  competi- 
tion, is  in  such  demand  that  its  manufacture  constitutes 
one  of  the  principal  minor  industries.  The  phenomenal 
demand  for  automobiles  in  the  last  decade  is  another  in- 
stance of  the  creative  power  of  competition. 

But  competition  gives  evidence  of  greatest  influence  in 
regulating  demand.  By  price-cutting,  advertising,  and 
artful  solicitation,  by  credits,  premiums,  discounts,  re- 
bates, special  sales,  clubbing  plans,  by  every  inducement 
and  device  known  to  modern  business,  the  demand  for 
goods  is  shifted  about,  stimulated,  depressed,  hindered, 
diverted  or  satisfied,  until,  through  the  numerous  arts 
of  competitive  ingenuity,  it  is  finally  brought  to  corre- 
spond in  a  general  way  with  supply.  In  this  manner  the 
needs  of  the  whole  society  are  fairly  anticipated, —  not  in 
the  sense  that  they  are  determined  before  they  arise,  but 
in  the  sense  that  they  do  not  arise  until  they  are  measur- 
ably provided  for. 

This  whole  question  is  one  of  supply  and  demand. 
The  demand  in  present  society  corresponds  to  the  needs 
of  society.  Owing  to  the  restraints  imposed  by  competi- 
tion, mere  desire  is  not  an  appreciable  factor.  Desire 
must  be  coupled  with  willingness  to  pay,  and  willingness 
must  be  coupled  with  ability  before  there  arises  a  de- 
mand. The  aim  of  competition  is  to  harmonize  and  bring 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT         273 

together  the  various  factors  that  make  up  supply  and 
the  several  elements  that  constitute  demand.  Each  en- 
terprise, each  business,  each  trade,  each  person  the 
world  over,  is  engaged  in  realizing  this  definite  aim. 
Each  is  a  definite  center  of  activity  in  this  direction  and 
each  has  a  certain  finality  of  interest  within  a  particular 
sphere.  But  the  activity  of  all  has  one  general  purpose 
and  the  interests  of  all  call  for  one  general  condition, — 
the  proportionate  development  of  supply  and  demand  so 
that  neither  will  fall  too  far  behind  the  other.  The 
moving  force  is  the  desire  for  profits,  but  in  an  indus- 
trial sense  the  desire  for  profits  is  equivalent  to  the  aim 
to  bring  supply  and  demand  to  their  highest  reach  with- 
out having  one  to  overreach  the  other. 

In  Socialisdom  all  this  would  be  necessarily  changed. 
Competition  would  be  abrogated;  profits  would  be  im- 
possible; ability  to  pay  for  things  wanted  would  be  out 
of  the  question.  Under  these  conditions  the  needs  of 
society  or  its  demands  would  correspond  with  the  sum 
of  the  unrestrained  desires  of  individuals ;  the  desires  of 
all  the  members  of  society  would  be  the  measure  of  the 
needs  of  the  society.  Of  course,  none  think  of  satisfy- 
ing the  desires  of  all;  hence,  one  of  two  consequences 
must  follow:  either  all  of  the  desires  of  some  or  some 
of  the  desires  of  all  will  be  satisfied.  The  first  is  Favor- 
itism, the  second  Communism. 

Socialists  do  not  like  to  face  this  question  squarely. 
They  are  ever  ready  to  assert  in  general  terms  that  in 
Socialisdom  there  will  be  such  an  abundance  of  goods 
that  "  then  for  the  first  time  man  will  emerge  from  mere 
animal  conditions  of  existence  into  really  human  ones." 
But  when  questioned  as  to  the  How?  of  this  splendid 


274  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

proposal,  they  either  belittle  the  questioner  or  resort  to 
some  vague  owlism  about  the  "  womb  of  time."  It  is 
but  rarely  that  one  finds  a  Socialist  like  Sydney  Webb, 
who  exclaims :  "  I  am  appalled  to  see  how  little  atten- 
tion we  give  to  questions  of  administration !  "  It  is  truly 
appalling  that  men  of  the  force  and  character  of  some 
Socialists  will  seriously  propose  to  abolish  the  principal 
institutions  of  society  without  even  considering  in  detail 
what  is  to  take  their  place,  and  worse  still,  deem  it  a 
mark  of  ignorance  in  another  to  do  so. 
2.  "  To  each  according  to  his  needs." 

But  the  problem  of  determining  the  needs  of  the 
whole  society  would  be  trivial  in  detail,  compared  with 
that  of  determining  the  needs  of  each  individual.  It  is 
unthinkable  that  society  could  judge  of  the  needs  of 
each  of  its  members.  One's  needs  cannot  be  judged  by 
one's  self  even  in  any  absolute  sense.  If  one  should 
fix  upon  certain  things  as  necessities,  others  are  more 
than  likely  to  disagree.  Anything  approaching  uniform- 
ity of  opinion  in  this  matter  is  impossible  to  bring 
about ;  "  as  many  men  there  are,  so  many  minds  there 
are."  Nor  is  it  merely  a  question  of  many  minds,  but 
also  of  many  characters,  occupations,  tastes,  talents,  and 
gifts  of  health,  life,  and  understanding.  Flying  machines 
may  be  a  necessity  for  some,  while  even  meat  may  not  be 
for  others.  Some  must  have  silks,  satins,  and  jewelry, 
while  others  need  but  a  single  garment  and  would  be  un- 
happy if  arrayed  in  finery.  And  what  is  a  necessity  for 
one  to-day  may  not  be  a  necessity  for  the  same  one  to- 
morrow or  next  day.  These  are  plain  truths,  which  it 
would  seem  mere  obstinacy  to  gainsay. 

So,  in  Socialisdom,  either  mere  desire  would  be  the 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT         275 

criterion  of  individual  needs,  or  else  they  must  be  fixed 
arbitrarily.  The  former,  of  course,  is  an  absurd  pro- 
posal. The  latter  is  not  Socialism,  but  Communism ;  that 
is,  if  the  fixed  needs  be  uniform  for  all  persons,  it  is 
Communism,  if  not,  it  is  Favoritism.  But  in  either  case, 
the  proposal  to  give  "  to  each  according  to  his  needs  " 
is  physically  impossible  of  realization. 

Considered  from  the  standpoint  of  the  whole  society, 
it  would  not  be  impossible  by  imposing  a  common  life 
on  all  to  meet  the  necessities  of  all ;  but  even  a  common 
life  among  its  members  would  not  enable  society  to  meet 
the  necessities  of  each  "  according  to  his  needs,"  for  cer- 
tain needs  would  be  peculiar  to  each  in  spite  of  the  com- 
mon rule.  It  is  simple  enough  to  fix  the  needs  of  all 
by  arbitrary  rule  of  law,  but  that  would  not  suffice  to 
meet  the  needs  of  each  that,  according  to  the  nature  and 
character  of  each,  would  still  be  actually  necessary  not- 
withstanding the  rule  fixed.  Therefore  it  is  not  merely 
a  question  of  Socialism  or  Communism,  but  of  getting 
around  the  physical  fact  that  the  necessities  of  individ- 
uals differ  and  will  continue  to  differ  as  long  as  the  char- 
acteristics of  individuality  exist.  They  differ  so  widely, 
so  variously,  and  with  such  constant  and  rapid  change 
in  their  differences,  that  among  large  numbers  of  indi- 
viduals it  is  physically  impossible  for  any  society  to  de- 
termine the  necessities  of  each  one. 
3.  "From  each  according  to  his  ability." 

How  would  society  secure  from  each  the  contribution 
indicated  by  this  formula?  Granting  that  each  would 
be  willing  to  contribute  according  to  his  ability,  who 
would  be  the  judge  of  the  matter?  The  general  public 
cannot  judge  of  one's  ability;  one  person  cannot  judge 


276  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

another's;  one  cannot  judge  for  one's  self  even.  In- 
stances are  numerous  in  every  walk  of  life  where  all  per- 
sons, one's  self  included,  have  been  deceived  to  their  sor- 
row in  this  matter.  Many  imagine  they  have  ability 
when  they  have  not;  —  but  who  is  to  say  they  have  not 
until  they  are  tried?  Who  is  to  say  it  even  when  they 
try  and  fail?  Is  it  not  failure  itself  that  often  leads 
to  success?  Many  imagine  they  have  not  ability  when 
they  have,  but  who  is  to  gainsay  them?  Even  when  a 
trial  has  given  evidence  of  ability,  can  it  be  forgotten 
that  very  often  success  is  the  forerunner  of  failure? 

But  surely  there  is  some  way  out  of  this  confusion. 
Yes,  a  simple  way,  which  is  condemned  by  Socialism. 
The  way  is  by  competition.  Without  competition  there 
could  be  no  way.  In  every  phase  of  social  production 
and  distribution  of  goods  competition  alone  is  the  condi- 
tion and  the  test  of  efficiency  for  achievement.  It  de- 
termines the  ability  of  each  person,  the  lowest  as  well 
as  the  highest.  It  determines  the  needs  of  each,  the  most 
pressing  as  well  as  the  lightest.  It  calls  forth  from  each 
the  best  talent,  the  purest  taste,  the  highest  skill,  the 
greatest  energy,  the  longest  forbearance.  It  demands 
and  secures  "  from  each  according  to  his  ability."  It 
checks  unfounded  ambition,  discourages  mistaken  effort, 
represses  unnecessary  desire,  and  in  this  way  it  provides 
for  "  each  according  to  his  needs."  It  does  not  do  these 
things  to  perfection,  of  course,  but  it  does  them  as  noth- 
ing else  possibly  can.  By  its  proposal  to  do  away  with 
competition  and  with  profits,  the  reward  flowing  from, 
and,  therefore,  the  incentive  to,  competition,  the  Socialist 
economic  aim  is  reduced  to  an  impossible  and  ridiculous 
economic  absurdity. 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          277 

(a)  A  Suggestion. 

Competition  is  an  economic  law.  It  is  not  the  su- 
preme law.  Justice  is  higher.  Charity  is  higher.  Be- 
cause it  is  a  good  thing  and  even  a  necessary  thing,  it 
does  not  follow  that  competition  should  suffer  no  re- 
straint. Competition  is  the  one  thing  necessary  to 
achievement,  but  achievement  at  the  expense  of  justice  or 
charity  is  too  expensive.  All  good  things  are  abused  by 
men,  and  competition  is  abused  no  less  than  other  good 
things.  But  this  is  not  a  sufficient  reason,  in  fact  it  is 
not  a  reason  at  all,  to  abolish  competition.  If  the  abuse 
of  a  good  thing  cannot  be  stopped,  the  fault  is  not  in 
the  thing  but  in  the  force  brought  to  bear  on  the  abuse. 
The  fault  will  remain  when  the  thing  abused  is  abol- 
ished, and  the  abuse  will  be  transferred  to  something 
else  and  will  not  be  checked.  That  the  abuse  will  be 
merely  transferred  to  something  else  is  certain.  Any- 
thing can  be  abused,  and  ill-disposed  human  nature  is  not 
content  unless  it  is  abusing  something.  So  long  as  hu- 
man nature  is  human,  therefore,  it  will  be  quite  useless 
to  destroy  a  thing  in  order  to  prevent  abuse.  Of  course, 
if  it  is  proposed  to  change  human  nature,  the  matter  is 
different ;  but  why  not  do  that  in  the  first  place  ? 

The  abuse  of  competition  comes  principally  from  its 
being  misdirected.  Its  true  purpose  is  to  achieve.  Re- 
ward follows,  not  as  a  result  of  competition,  but  as  the 
fruits  of  achievement.  But  competition  is  often  per- 
verted in  its  aim,  and  reward  instead  of  achievement 
becomes  its  objective.  This  ought  not  to  be  so.  Justice 
requires  that  reward  follow  achievement  as  a  matter  of 
course,  and  justice  is  violated  when  competition  inter- 
feres with  this  order.  True,  reward  is  the  ultimate  aim 


278  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

of  all  endeavor;  the  wrong  lies  in  its  being  made  the 
immediate  aim.  This  sets  up  advantage  instead  of  merit 
as  a  condition  of  right.  For  if  reward  is  to  be  the  imme- 
diate object  of  competition,  then  he  who  accomplishes  the 
least  perhaps  may  claim  the  most.  By  the  accident  of 
some  advantage  not  due  to  merit,  he  may  claim  the  fruits 
of  another's  successful  endeavor  and  take  from  him  his 
justly  earned  reward.  This  is  forcibly  illustrated  by 
what  in  the  commercial  world  is  known  as  a  corner  in 
the  market,  when  some  one  by  a  trick  of  trade  secures 
control  over  a  commodity  and,  without  adding  anything 
to  its  worth,  advances  its  price  above  the  common,  nor- 
mal, and  just  estimate  of  what  is  fair.  This  is  competi- 
tion for  reward  without  achievement  and  though  in  one 
form  or  another  it  is  not  an  uncommon  practice  in  mod- 
ern society  it  is  contrary  to  justice.  Competition  for  re- 
ward regardless  of  achievement  cannot  prove  other  than 
unjust. 

The  failure  to  distinguish  between  the  right  and 
wrong  objective  of  competition  is  responsible  for  the 
errors  of  two  well-known  but  widely  differing  schools 
of  political  economy.  One  is  the  school  of  Ricardo, 
which  holds  that  competition  is  a  crime  and  in  no  case 
should  be  permitted.  The  other  is  the  Manchester 
school,  which  holds  that  it  is  the  greatest  good  and  in 
no  case  should  be  hindered.  Each  of  these  doctrines  is 
true  in  part  and  in  part  false.  Combining  them  in  as 
much  as  they  are  true,  we  get  the  correct  principle: 
Competition  for  reward  without  achievement  is  virtually 
robbery,  but  competition  for  achievement  is  a  necessary 
condition  of  progress  in  society. 

In  modern  society  this  dual  principle  is  violated  in 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          279 

both  of  its  essential  aspects,  and  usually  by  the  same 
practice.  The  unnatural  advantage  that  some  members 
of  society  enjoy,  often  makes  competition  with  them  a 
mere  fiction.  They  were  accorded  this  advantage  by  so- 
ciety's conferring  upon  them  certain  artificial  powers  or 
privileges,  such  as  those  attending  upon  incorporation, 
and  the  object  of  this  was  greater  achievement.  But 
this  object  is  frequently  lost  to  view  and  these  privileges 
are  used  to  secure  greater  reward  regardless  of  achieve- 
ment. Probably  the  most  deporable  results  of  this  mis- 
use or  abuse  of  society's  privileges  are  seen  in  the  con- 
dition of  the  working  classes  of  modern  times.  In 
many  instances,  owing  to  the  great  advantage  of  the 
employing  classes,  the  workers  are  not  free  to  compete 
with  them  but  must  yield  to  them  out  of  necessity.  If 
the  advantage  of  the  employing  classes  were  a  natural 
advantage,  the  consequence  would  not  be  unjust.  But  it 
is  not  natural.  While  in  the  abstract  labor,  being  equally 
necessary  with,  is  as  powerful  a  competitor  as  is  capi- 
tal, the  capitalist  of  modern  industry  is  usually  at  an 
advantage.  This  is  the  result  of  artificial  conditions 
built  up  by  society  in  the  course  of  its  growth  and 
progress,  conditions  very  effective  toward  greater  achieve- 
ment of  the  whole  society,  but  very  destructive  to  the 
competitive  equality  of  some  parts.  Since  society  has 
produced  these  conditions,  it  should  control  them,  and 
while  it  would  not  be  the  part  of  wisdom  to  abolish  them, 
because  they  are  advantageous,  their  abuse  should  be  pre- 
vented and  their  evil  effects  counteracted  as  far  as  may 
be  without  interfering  with  rights  that  take  precedence 
even  before  society's.  It  is  clearly  the  duty  of  modern 
society  not  only  itself  not  to  abridge  the  freedom  of 


280  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

competition,  but  also  not  to  suffer  this  to  be  done  with 
means  that  have  come  about  through  social  progress. 
In  fine,  society  ought  not  to  result  in  some  of  its  mem- 
bers without  fault  being  made  worse  off  than  they  would 
be  without  society.  This  result  is  seen  to  have  come 
about  in  some  instances,  and  in  those,  society  should  in- 
terfere to  correct  results  and  should  stop  the  abuse  that 
effects  them,  if  they  are  results  of  abuse,  otherwise  cre- 
ate other  conditions  that  will  counterbalance  those  al- 
ready existing. 

Owing  to  the  close  connection  between  reward  and 
achievement,  the  principle  of  free  competition  for 
achievement  and  no  competition  for  reward  is  difficult 
of  juridical  application  at  all  times,  because,  first,  the  di- 
rection in  which  endeavor  is  aimed  is  often  obscured,  and, 
second,  it  constantly  changes.  Hence  there  is  a  broad 
field  where  competition  even  for  reward  must  be  suf- 
fered by  society,  not  because  it  is  just,  but  because  it 
cannot  be  said  with  assurance  on  which  side  justice  is 
violated.  But  where  it  is  evident  that  a  birthright  is 
required  for  a  mess  of  pottage,  there  can  be  no  mistak- 
ing the  object  of  competition  and  no  difficulty  in  apply- 
ing juridical  restraint.  We  are  unable  to  discern  when 
daylight  ceases  and  darkness  begins,  though  we  cannot 
mistake  the  extremes ;  by  analogy,  though  we  cannot  say 
exactly  when  injustice  begins  to  displace  justice,  we  are 
not  blind  to  all  distinction  between  them. 

These  principles  form  the  basis  for  the  demand  for  a 
living  wage  that  is  meeting  with  such  growing  favor  in 
nearly  all  countries.  (The  1914  Report  of  the  Legisla- 
tive Bureau  of  the  American  Federation  shows  that 
more  than  a  third  of  the  States  have  adopted  laws  fix- 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          281 

ing  minimum  wages  for  certain  industries.)  This  de- 
mand is  not  to  be  confused  with  the  demand  for  the 
Right  of  Subsistence,  advanced  by  Morelly  (1753), 
Brissot  (1780),  Cabet  (1848),  and  others  of  Socialistic 
trend,  nor  with  the  doctrines  of  Fichte  and  Fourier.  It 
is  more  nearly  analogous  to  the  Right  to  Labor  mentioned 
by  Turgot  in  connection  with  Louis  XVT's  famous  edict 
relating  to  free  labor,  which  was  ineffectively  guaranteed 
by  the  French  Constitution  of  1793,  and  the  Prussian 
Civil  Code  of  1794.  This  demand  does  not  grow  out  of 
charity.  It  is  rooted  in  justice.  It  is  of  a  character 
with  the  time-honored  inhibition  against  usury  and  tends 
to  vitalize  the  principle  that  forbids  direct  competition 
for  reward.  Were  the  relative  strength  of  the  capitalist 
and  the  laborer  in  modern  society  reversed,  so  that  there 
were  danger  of  wages  being  forced  up  to  a  prohibitive 
point,  justice  would  then  require  a  maximum  wage  to 
be  fixed.  This  seems  to  have  occurred  when  the  Hun- 
dred Years'  War  and  the  Black  Plague  almost  depopu- 
lated England  of  workingmen,  and  a  maximum  wage  was 
accordingly  fixed  by  the  Statute  of  Laborers  (23  Edw. 
Ill),  which  probably  is  the  first  instance  of  English  leg- 
islation on  this  subject.  And  signs  are  not  wanting  that 
indicate  a  recurrence  of  conditions  that  may  call  for 
a  fixed  maximum  wage.  But  in  view  of  existing  condi- 
tions, though  the  growing  force  of  labor  organizations 
and  the  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  State  toward  greater 
interference  may  change  the  present  advantage  of  the 
employer  over  the  employed,  there  seems  in  justice  no 
reason  against  fixing  a  minimum  wage  in  those  industries 
where  a  living  wage  is  uncertain. 
With  the  question  of  maximum  interest  and  minimum 


282  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

wage  regulation  should  be  classed  the  less  agitated  but 
no  less  important  question  of  maximum  rent.  Except- 
ing the  Irish  Land  Act  (44  Vic.  49),  which  suppressed 
rack-renting,  there  appears  to  be  no  English  legislation 
specifically  regulating  rent.  In  fact,  there  seems  to  have 
been  no  agitation  for  such  regulation,  though  the  abro- 
gation of  rent  has  been  urged  with  much  frequency  by 
the  proponents  of  various  schemes  of  land  nationaliza- 
tion. (Cf.  Henry  George's  Progress  and  Poverty, 
Alfred  Wallace's  Land  Nationalisation,  Herbert  Spen- 
cer's Social  Statics,  and  the  older  writings  of  Thomas, 
especially,  The  Meridian  Sun.)  Rent-usury,  as  clearly 
as  wage-usury,  is  of  a  kind  with  loan-usury.  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  perceive  the  justice  of  requiring  mobile  capital 
to  be  hired  at  restricted  rates,  as  in  prohibiting  usurious 
interest,  and  at  the  same  time  permitting  fixed  capital 
to  be  hired  at  unrestricted  rates  as  in  renting.  Prior  to 
the  elaborate  systems  of  property  insurance  now  in 
vogue  and  when  methods  of  conserving  or  redeeming 
land  by  cultivation  were  unknown,  the  difference  in  the 
risk  of  letting  money  and  of  letting  land  was  eminently 
great.  (It  is  surprising  that  this  difference  is  overlooked 
by  Menger,  who,  in  his  Right  to  the  Whole  Produce  of 
Labor,  places  the  two  squarely  on  the  same  footing, 
criticising  both  State  and  Church  —  the  latter  fervently 
—  for  their  practice  in  distinguishing  between  them  in 
the  past.)  And  owing  to  the  wear  and  tear  on  landed 
improvements,  which  is  both  unavoidable  and  uninsur- 
able,  some  difference  should  still  be  allowed.  But  with 
this  allowance  made,  though  there  is  just  reason  for  a 
somewhat  higher  rate  of  rent  than  of  interest,  there  ap- 
pears no  reason  in  justice  against  a  fixed  maximum  for 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT         283 

both.  Of  course,  this  does  not  apply  to  rent  paid  in 
kind,  known  as  share-renting,  after  the  French  econ- 
omists called  the  metayer  system,  which  is  widely  prac- 
ticed by  agricultural  tenantry.  In  such  cases  the  owner 
joins  the  user  in  assuming  the  risks  incident  to  produc- 
tion, thus  creating  a  relation  analogous  to  a  business  part- 
nership wherein  one  partner  furnishes  the  capital  and 
the  other  conducts  the  enterprise.  In  such  cases  a  fixed 
maximum  return  for  the  capital  obviously  would  be  un- 
just 

In  addition  to  wages,  interest,  and  rent,  there  are  two 
other  important  forms  of  reward  that  result  from 
achievement.  Rent  and  interest  are  the  fruits  of  pre- 
vious achievement;  wages,  the  fruits  of  concurrent 
achievement.  The  other  two  forms  are  dividends  and 
profits.  These  are  the  fruits  of  previous  and  concur- 
rent achievement  combined.  The  Dutch  economist, 
Melon,  writing  in  1734,  classes  dividends  with  rents  and 
both  with  interest.  This  view  is  adopted  by  Sidgwick 
and  approved  by  Devas.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Lib- 
eral school  of  economists  classifies  dividends  with  in- 
terest and  both  with  rents.  Thus,  though  Conservative 
and  Liberal  each  has  a  distinct  classification  for  divi- 
dends, both  claim  for  this  form  of  reward,  as  for  rent 
and  interest,  the  character  of  "  unearned  income."  Still 
more  inclusive  is  the  classification  of  Socialist  writers, 
who,  following  Marx,  perceive  no  difference  in  rent,  in- 
terest, dividends,  and  profit,  but  class  all  of  them  as  forms 
of  "  surplus  value." 

Notwithstanding  its  able  exponents,  however,  the  view 
that  dividends  are  of  a  character  with  interest  or  rents 
is  of  doubtful  accuracy.  They  seem  more  correctly  classi- 


284  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

fied  with  profits.  Dividends  and  profits  are  produced  by 
the  capital  invested  in  a  business.  They  can  be  produced 
by  that  particular  capital  alone.  True,  labor  contributes 
to  their  production,  but  it  is  hired  labor,  to  which  the 
business  is  in  justice  required  to  pay  a  fair  wage  or  sal- 
ary whether  it  succeeds  or  fails.  The  capital  assumes 
all  the  risk  and  the  labor  none.  While  in  any  event 
the  labor  employed  gets  the  return  of  a  fair  wage,  if 
nothing  is  achieved  in  the  business,  the  capital  gets  no  re- 
ward. This  is  as  it  should  be.  On  the  contrary,  inter- 
ests and  rents  are  not  necessarily  produced  by  the  busi- 
ness in  which  the  capital  they  pay  for  is  used ;  they  must 
be  paid  though  their  use  prove  entirely  unprofitable. 
The  capital,  instead  of  labor,  is  hired  in  this  case.  It 
is  entitled  to  a  just  return  in  interest  or  rents,  but  no 
more.  It  is  entitled  to  that  much  even  though  nothing 
be  achieved  through  its  use.  But  it  is  entitled  to  no 
more,  however  much  may  be  achieved  thereby.  Since 
it  will  be  paid  for  in  any  event,  it  takes  no  risks,  there- 
fore, more  than  a  fair  return  should  not  be  paid  for  it 
in  the  event  of  success. 

The  fruits  of  achievement  must  go  to  him  who  under- 
takes and  carries  out  the  project  in  hand,  be  he  a  capi- 
talist who  hires  labor,  or  a  laborer  who  hires  capital. 
He  must  pay  a  fair  price  for  what  he  hires,  in  wages, 
interest  or  rents.  He  is  justly  entitled  to  the  balance  in 
dividends  and  profits.  The  only  question  bearing  on  the 
amount  of  dividends  or  profits  that  may  be  justly  taken 
by  the  mover  of  a  successful  enterprise  is  the  justice 
of  the  wage,  the  interest  or  the  rents  that  he  pays  for 
the  factors  he  hires.  While  this  question,  as  a  rule,  is 
to  be  determined  by  bargaining  and  agreement,  there  are 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          285 

certain  limits  beyond  which  terms  should  not  be  allowed, 
because  they  are  plainly  so  unjust  that  none  would  freely 
agree  to  them,  and  the  agreement  is  secured  only  by  rea- 
son of  the  extreme  necessity  of  the  injured  party.  Here 
society  should  interpose  its  restraining  authority  to  pre- 
vent one  from  taking  advantage  of  the  necessity  of  an- 
other to  force  the  terms  of  an  unfair  and  harsh  bargain. 
Society  should  not  interfere  too  soon,  however,  or  as- 
sume to  go  farther  than  necessity  demands;  for  that 
would  defeat  the  very  purpose  of  its  action  by  interfer- 
ing with  the  freedom  of  the  individual. 

The  whole  problem  of  social  justice  is  rooted  in  the 
principle  of  free  competition  for  achievement  and  no  com- 
petition for  reward,  either  for  the  reward  being  earned, 
or  for  that  previously  earned.  This  principle  ordinarily 
must  look  to  the  moral  conscience  for  its  application,  but 
in  extreme  cases  it  can  be  applied  juridically  and  should 
then  be  vitalized  by  the  State  through  its  laws  fixing  the 
minimum  or  maximum  of  wages,  interests,  and  rents,  as 
occasion  requires.  The  common  estimate  of  what  is  fair, 
which  normally  prevails  in  a  community,  is  usually  a 
safe  criterion  for  the  distribution  of  reward.  By  care- 
fully observing  it,  by  scorning  all  efforts  to  evade  it,  by 
requiring  others  to  measure  up  to  it  in  their  dealings 
and  invoking  the  aid  of  society  when  they  plainly  do  not 
or  certainly  will  not, —  these  broad  rules  of  conduct  will 
insure  the  greatest  measure  of  justice  that  is  possible  in 
society.  They  will  not  bring  about  equality  of  posses- 
sions ;  they  will  not  prevent  one  from  becoming  very 
rich,  or  another  very  poor.  Justice  is  in  no  proper  sense 
an  equalizing  principle.  It  admits  of  the  greatest  dis- 
parity of  possessions.  It  requires  such  disparity.  It  re- 


286  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

quires  a  disparity  of  possessions  that  corresponds  to  the 
general  disparity  of  natural  gifts,  talents,  all-round  com- 
petency and  fitness  that  exists  in  all  phases  of  life.  Such 
disparity  is  rooted  in  human  nature,  and  it  would  be 
stultifying  and  highly  unjust  to  prevent  it  from  produc- 
ing a  corresponding  disparity  in  the  possession  of  things 
provided  for  this  same  human  nature.  It  is  where  this 
disparity  is  artificial  and  not  natural,  privileged  and  not 
merited,  that  a  corresponding  disparity  of  possessions 
violates  justice.  But,  obviously,  this  cannot  be  in  com- 
petency in  the  field  of  achievement.  For  there,  compe- 
tency must  be  real  in  order  to  achieve.  The  power  to 
hinder  the  achievement  of  others,  to  reap  the  fruits  of 
their  achievement,  may  be  artificial,  but  the  power  to 
achieve  is  nothing  if  not  real.  Hence,  in  the  freedom 
of  competition  for  achievement,  and  in  the  restraint  of 
competition  for  reward,  we  have  the  whole  law  of  social 
justice  in  the  production  and  distribution  of  goods. 

There  is  another  principle  affecting  the  matter  of  dis- 
tributing goods  that  requires  more  than  justice.  Bare 
justice  would  give  no  relief  to  those  members  of  society 
who  through  affliction  or  infirmity  are  not  able  to  achieve 
anything.  Charity  must  come  to  their  assistance.  The 
law  of  charity  is  as  imperative  on  occasion  as  the  law 
of  justice,  and  binding  on  society  no  less  than  on  indi- 
viduals. The  inherent  dignity  of  the  human  person  re- 
quires that  all  other  considerations  shall  give  way  to  the 
preservation  of  human  life.  In  the  essentials  that  make 
a  human  being  human,  there  is  no  difference  between 
the  fit  and  the  unfit.  Until  he  has  forfeited  his  life  by 
wrong  doing  even  the  most  lowly  and  the  most  feeble 
has  a  right  to  live  before  the  most  exalted  and  the  most 


AS  AN  ECONOMIC  MOVEMENT          287 

powerful  can  rightly  claim  more  than  a  living.  It  is  the 
teaching  of  all  reliable  moralists  that  the  right  of  each 
person  to  hold  as  his  own  the  fruits  of  his  achievement 
is  sacred  and  inviolable.  But  it  is  not  without  obliga- 
tions, individual  and  social.  The  needs  of  society,  and 
the  demands  of  charity,  constitute  a  first  mortgage,  as 
it  were,  upon  the  possessions  of  each  person  that  exceed 
his  proper  subsistence.  This  principle  is  most  admirably 
set  forth  in  Leo  XIII's  famous  encyclical  letter  on  "  The 
Condition  of  the  Working  Classes,"  which  perhaps  is  the 
most  profound  treatise  of  modern  times  on  this  subject. 
Speaking  in  the  Imperial  Parliament,  in  1884,  Bismarck 
said :  "  Give  the  laborer  the  right  to  work  in  health, 
care  for  him  when  sick,  and  pension  him  when  old." 
Here  is  justice  supplemented  by  charity, —  the  same 
thought  coming  to  the  great  Chancellor  and  the  great 
Pope,  the  two  most  remarkable  men  of  their  century. 
Nothing  less  than  irresistible  truth  could  bring  together 
on  one  point  the  minds  of  two  men  of  their  surpassing 
powers,  when  they  were  so  widely  apart  in  every  other 
respect. 

Very  few  societies  in  history  have  altogether  disowned 
this  triune  principle  of  distribution  according  to  justice, 
necessity,  and  charity ;  and  the  few  that  have,  have  come 
to  certain  and  usually  sudden  disaster.  Sparta  perhaps 
is  the  most  notable  example  of  this  retributive  fate. 
Sparta  ignored  justice  and  despised  charity  and  in  con- 
sequence, notwithstanding  she  practiced  cruel  ingenuity 
to  develop  her  citizenry,  the  cause  of  her  downfall,  as 
summed  up  by  Aristotle  in  four  words,  was  "  the  want 
of  men."  On  the  other  hand,  under  the  dominance  of 
the  Fourth  Estate  in  France,  though  charity  was  over- 


288  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

done,  justice  was  disregarded,  and  in  consequence  France 
was  like  to  have  suffered  the  fate  that  was  later  to  befall 
Poland,  when  the  genius  of  the  "  Little  Corporal "  set 
up  an  antidotal  regime  that  knew  no  law  but  blood  and 
iron.  Among  the  numerous  American  communities  es- 
tablished during  the  last  century  by  various  Socialist 
sects,  there  was  a  common  practice  of  violating  justice 
by  diverting  the  natural  course  of  reward,  which  by  their 
rules  was  conditioned  on  advantage  instead  of  achieve- 
ment—  and  oi  these  communities  there  remains  nothing 
but  fragmentary  history. 

Thus  history  holds  out  no  encouragement  for  those 
who  think  of  abolishing  charity  or  of  denying  justice  in 
society.  It  holds  out  none  for  those  who  would  substi- 
tute advantage  for  merit  in  the  distribution  of  goods. 
It  holds  out  none  for  those  who  would  suffer  competi- 
tion for  reward  or  hinder  competition  for  achievement. 

NOTE. —  As  indicated  in  the  Preface,  the  author  is  now  preparing 
a  study  of  social  problems,  which  will  more  fully  analyse  the 
province  and  duty  of  the  State  in  respect  to  existing  economic  in- 
equalities. This  book  may  be  expected  to  issue  during  the  coming 
year  (1916). —  ED. 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION 
STATEMENT 

I.    VALUE 

Considered  as  a  whole,  it  cannot  fail  to  be  remarked 
that,  while  it  seriously  and  vitally  affects  our  entire 
civilization  by  both  its  criticisms  and  its  proposals,  So- 
cialism in  the  main  is  an  economic  movement.  Its  indict- 
ment of  present  society  rests  almost  entirely  upon  its 
teaching  that,  economically  speaking,  every  social  insti- 
tution and  ideal  is  constituted  into  a  system  of  exploi- 
tation and  robbery.  Its  philosophy  makes  economic  con- 
ditions serve  as  the  sole  condition  and  determinant  of 
human  consciousness.  Its  moral  teaching  rests  upon  its 
doctrine  of  economic  determinism,  as  supplemented  by 
its  theory  of  a  class-struggle  between  economic  classes. 
Its  proposals,  however  they  would  overthrow  the  whole 
order  of  social  existence,  are  confined  in  the  last  analy- 
sis to  a  change  of  economic  conditions.  This  summary, 
therefore,  fulfills  its  purpose  with  an  outline  of  the 
principles  and  aims  of  Socialist  economics  and  the  chief 
objections  to  be  urged  against  them. 

The  Socialist  conception  of  value  is  comprehended  in 
the  single  idea  that  it  is  an  exchange  characteristic.  It 
is  peculiar  to  commodities.  It  is  determined  by  labor, 
the  only  measurable  thing  that  is  common  alike  in  all 
commodities.  Not  by  actual  labor,  however,  but  by  "  so- 

291 


292  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

cial  labor,"  which  is  the  sum  of  human  effort  spent  in 
producing  commodities, —  not  actually  spent,  but  "  on 
the  average  necessary." 

II.     SURPLUS  VALUE 

This  is  the  product  of  labor  that  is  spent  after  the 
cost  of  the  labor-power  is  produced.  The  laborer  sells 
his  labor-power  at  its  cost,  i.e.,  for  an  equivalent  of  the 
"  necessities  "  consumed  in  developing  that  power.  The 
capitalist  uses  the  power  not  only  till  it  produces  what 
it  cost,  but  as  long  as  is  physically  possible.  Thus,  the 
capitalist  gets  the  benefit  of  labor  for  which  he  has  not 
paid.  Surplus  value  is  the  product  of  unpaid  labor.  In 
modern  society  it  amounts  to  about  eighty  per  cent,  of 
the  total  product.  The  capitalists  get  eighty  per  cent., 
the  laborers  twenty,  though  the  latter  produce  the  whole. 

III.    THE  CLASS  STRUGGLE 

From  this  conception  of  surplus  value  it  is  plain  that 
the  capitalists  live  and  thrive  by  robbing  the  laborers, 
while  the  laborers  barely  live  by  resisting  the  capitalists 
to  their  utmost.  The  conflict  between  them  is  inherent 
and  deadly.  The  laborers  have  numbers  on  their  side, 
but  despite  numbers  they  steadily  lose,  because  the  cap- 
italists have  organization, —  religion,  State,  family,  school, 
press,  public  opinion  and,  at  the  root  of  all,  private 
property, —  all  of  which  go  to  systematize  the  robbery 
of  the  common  labor  of  mankind. 

IV.    THE  SYSTEM 

The  system  works  as  follows:  the  capitalists  own  the 
instruments  of  production  and  distribution.  In  order  to 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION  293 

live,  the  laborers  must  use  these  instruments,  and  the 
owners  of  them  require  the  laborers  to  pay  a  tribute  for 
their  use.  All  of  the  institutions  of  civilization  sup- 
port the  capitalists  in  this  ownership,  and  affirm  their 
right  to  the  tribute.  This  is  what  social  institutions 
were  made  for.  Religion  holds  out  to  the  patient  laborer 
a  heavenly  crown  for  his  submission  and  his  enforced 
poverty,  the  State  threatens  the  rebellious  laborer  with 
punishment  for  violating  the  laws  of  property,  the  school 
and  the  press  combine  to  deceive  the  workers,  and  public 
opinion  fills  them  with  fear,  doubt,  and  despair. 

V.    THE  REMEDY 

To  remedy  this,  the  ownership  of  property  must  be 
brought  to  correspond  with  its  use.  It  must  be  pre- 
scribed that,  while  each  person  has  a  right  to  own  what- 
ever he  himself  uses,  no  person  has  a  right  to  own 
what  another  person  uses,  and  what  is  collectively  used 
must  be  collectively  owned.  Especially  is  this  true  of  the 
means  of  production,  distribution,  and  exchange;  but  it 
is  also  true  of  any  property  by  virtue  of  ownership  in 
which  one  person  might  use  the  labor-power  of  another 
to  profit.  Not  only  must  property  that  is  collectively 
used  be  collectively  owned,  but  it  must  also  be  collectively 
operated.  In  fine,  "  The  buying  and  selling  of  labor 
must  come  to  an  end."  "  The  making  of  goods  for 
profit  must  come  to  an  end."  Commodities  must  be 
produced  with  an  eye  single  to  their  use,  and  exchange 
must  be  based  on  value  determined  by  labor.  This  plan 
will  immediately  check,  and  finally  destroy,  all  avarice 
and  greed  among  men.  It  will  dispense  with  the  neces- 
sity for  all  laws  relating  to  property  and  for  most  laws 


294  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

relating  to  crime.  It  will  cause  the  State  to  die  out, 
since  it  exists  only  for  the  protection  of  the  dominant 
economic  class,  and  then  there  would  be  no  economic 
classes.  It  will  destroy  the  family  because  there  will  be 
no  occasion  for  one  to  know  his.  offspring  so  as  to  leave 
it  property,  which  alone  is  the  reason  for  marriage.  This 
plan  would  result  in  a  wonderful  industrial  growth  and 
marvelous  educational  advancement;  the  work  of  the 
entire  world  would  come  to  be  performed  by  machinery, 
and  the  machinery  would  be  operated  by  the  touch  of  a 
button ;  there  would  be  a  plentiful  abundance  of  goods 
for  all  persons,  and  all  would  have  rest  and  leisure,  and 
artists  and  scientists  and  scholars  would  abound  in  count- 
less numbers.  This  would  destroy  forever  the  fantastic 
notion  of  a  heaven  hereafter  and  establish  in  its  stead 
the  knowledge  of  a  real  paradise  here.  Religion  would 
then  be  but  a  painful  memory  reminding  man  of  the 
time  when  he  was  striving  after  false  ideals  while  he 
yielded  up  all  means  of  attaining  the  true. 

REFUTATION 

(i) 

The  root  fallacy  of  the  teachings  thus  outlined  is  found 
in  the  assumption  that  equal  values  are  received  and 
demanded  in  the  course  of  exchange.  This  necessitates 
a  measure  of  value  in  order  to  strike  an  equation ;  this 
calls  for  a  sort  of  common  denominator  in  commod- 
ities, which  is  labor.  But  in  truth,  exchange  takes  place 
only  when  values  are  unequal.  Both  parties  to  every 
exchange  demand  and  believe  they  receive  a  greater 
value  than  they  relinquish  by  the  exchange.  It  is  this 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION  295 

alone  that  induces  the  exchange.  Value,  considered 
solely  as  an  exchange  characteristic,  has  no  meaning. 
Considered  in  any  other  sense,  except  as  synonymous 
with  price,  it  is  undeterminable  on  any  basis  and  impos- 
sible to  gauge  or  measure  by  any  means. 

(n) 

Value  not  being  measurable  or  determinable,  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  surplus  value.  Before  there  can  be 
said  to  be  a  surplus  there  must  be  a  plenty,  and  before 
there  can  be  said  to  be  a  plenty,  there  must  be  a  com- 
parison of  standards  of  some  kind.  Eliminating  the  mat- 
ter of  price,  there  is  no  standard  of  exchange.  There 
could  not  be  one  when  both  parties  to  an  exchange  de- 
mand and  think  they  receive  more  than  they  give  by  the 
exchange.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  idea  of  sur- 
plus value  is  purely  imaginary.  Moreover,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  say,  even  approximately,  how  much  any  person 
produces  by  just  his  own  labor.  Considering  labor-power 
independently  of  the  means  furnished  the  laborer  by 
capital  (which,  being  the  product  of  labor  expended  by 
another  than  the  instant  laborer,  the  latter  of  course  can- 
not justly  claim  the  product  of),  it  is  doubtful  if  any 
person  in  modern  society  produces  as  much  as  he  con- 
sumes. 

(in) 

The  value  and  surplus-value  theories  being  exploded, 
the  class-struggle  theory  is  without  support.  It  had  no 
support  anyhow.  Both  labor  and  capital  are  required 
to  produce  value.  Both  enter  into  the  production  of 
every  commodity,  although  the  proportion  of  their  re- 


296  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

spective  contributions  to  the  product  cannot  in  any  in- 
stance be  determined.  It  requires  both  capital  and  labor 
to  make  profits;  and  they  should  divide  the  profits,  as 
they  have  divided  them  since  the  beginning.  True,  it 
seems  this  division  has  not  always  been  just  in  the  past, 
neither  is  it  so  now,  nor  will  it  ever  be  so,  if  we  con- 
sider particular  instances.  But  whether  on  the  whole 
either  capital  or  labor  has  got  more  than  its  share  is 
impossible  to  say  or  to  think,  for  the  proportion  of  their 
respective  contributions  to  production,  distribution,  and 
exchange  cannot  be  imagined,  much  less  determined. 
That  injustice  is  systematically  worked  by  the  capitalists 
does  not  follow  from  the  fact  that  they  own  the  in- 
struments of  wealth.  It  may  be  worked  with  equal  fa- 
cility by  the  laborers  because  they  own  the  driving  power 
of  those  instruments.  There  are  instances  where  the 
capitalists  plainly  work  injustice.  There  are  instances 
where  the  laborers  as  plainly  do  so.  These  are  the  ex- 
tremes, and  they  can  be  regulated;  but  short  of  that, 
regulation  by  arbitrary  rule  would  defeat  justice  rather 
than  promote  it.  For  these  reasons  there  can  be  no 
class  struggle  in  the  sense  predicated  by  Socialist  teach- 
ing. But  a  plainer  reason  still  why  there  is  no  class- 
struggle  between  capitalists  and  workingmen  is  that  all 
workers  are  capitalists,  and  all  capitalists  are  workers. 
There  are  but  few  in  society  who  do  not  work  and  from 
whose  work  some  one  else  does  not  realize  a  profit. 
This  is  true  of  all  classes.  Within  each  class  one  profits 
by  the  assistance  of  another.  Indeed,  one  profits  by  the 
labor  of  another,  while  the  other  is  at  the  same  time 
profiting  by  the  labor  of  the  first.  Mutual  assistance 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION  297 

rather  than  class-struggle  is  the  law  of  application  in 
social  activity. 

(IV) 

The  systematized  robbery  imagined  by  the  Socialists 
is  purely  imaginary.  It  rests  on  the  class  struggle  the- 
ory, which  rests  on  the  surplus-value  theory,  which  rests 
on  the  value  theory,  which  rests  on  the  assumption  that 
equal  values  are  normally  exchanged,  which  is  an  in- 
herent contradiction.  These  theories  are  all  linked  to- 
gether, and  they  all  fall  through  the  fallacy  of  the  as- 
sumption that  equal  values  are  normally  exchanged. 

(v) 

The  remedy  proposed,  if  a  remedy  were  needed  in 
the  sense  proposed, —  not  as  a  reform  but  as  a  new  so- 
ciety,—  is  impossible.  It  is  not  possible  even  to  work  it 
out  on  paper.  How  will  the  public  acquire  the  property 
necessary  to  prevent  persons  from  buying  and  selling 
labor-power?  It  could  not  be  purchased  because  there 
is  not  money  enough.  It  could  not  be  confiscated  be- 
cause the  capitalists  own  all  the  instruments  and  agencies 
for  making  war.  And  if  the  public  by  chance  acquired 
the  property,  it  could  not  operate  it.  No  collective  body 
could  effect  a  division  of  labor  that  would  carry  on  in- 
dustry on  its  present  scale.  Labor  could  not  be  collec- 
tively directed  so  that  the  present  efficiency  of  industry 
would  be  maintained.  The  product  could  not  be  gauged 
so  as  to  produce  just  enough  to  satisfy  the  needs  of  so- 
ciety. Nor  could  the  needs  of  society  be  known.  It  is 
impossible  to  say  Who  wants  What,  when  there  are  mil- 


298  A  STUDY  IN  SOCIALISM 

lions  of  people  to  consider.  Finally,  there  is  no  way  of 
inducing  men  to  work  long  and  arduously  for  mere 
amusement.  If  one  who  does  not  work  fares  as  well 
as  one  who  does,  the  latter  will  speedily  find  excuse  not 
to  work:  there  must  be  an  incentive  for  all  endeavor. 
There  would  be  none  in  Socialism  except  for  eating  and 
drinking  and  making  merry. 

It  is  no  answer  to  these  objections  to  say  that  what- 
ever can  be  done  in  present  society,  can  be  done  just 
as  well,  if  not  better,  in  the  society  proposed.  Compe- 
tition governs  industry  nowadays.  It  enters  into  the 
workings  of  business,  profession,  trade,  life  at  all  points. 
It  requires  of  each  person  that  he  do  his  best  always, 
and  if  that  is  not  good  enough  he  must  give  way  for  one 
who  can  do  better.  It  automatically  eliminates  the  unfit, 
whether  a  capitalist  or  a  workingman,  an  employer  or 
an  employe.  It  is  inexorable  in  its  dictate  that  only  the 
fittest  shall  survive.  It  is  not  a  moral  law.  The  good 
are  not  rewarded  nor  the  bad  made  to  suffer  through 
competition.  He  is  willfully  blind  who  does  not  see  nu- 
merous instances  of  hardship  suffered  by  one  of  the 
best  intentions  and,  too,  for  no  other  reason  than  that 
competition  has  singled  him  out  for  some  particular  in 
which  he  is  not  quite  so  apt  as  his  fellow,  albeit  his  fellow 
is  at  heart  wholly  undeserving.  But  competition  is  a  law 
of  efficiency.  It  is  a  condition  of  progress  and  achieve- 
ment. It  has  brought  the  business  of  the  world  to,  and 
now  sustains  it  at,  the  highest  point  of  efficiency  known 
to  man ;  and  without  competition,  society  has  no  method 
and  can  devise  none  whereby  that  high  point  can  be 
maintained.  It  is  eminently  fitting  that  competition  in 


SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSION  299 

society  be  regulated  wherever  it  is  misdirected  and  plainly 
works  injustice ;  but  it  ought  not  to  be,  and,  indeed,  it 
may  be  said  with  assurance  that,  as  long  as  human  na- 
ture is  human,  it  cannot  be  abrogated. 


AUTHORITIES 

Abbott, 

Industrial  Democracy. 
Rights  of  Man. 

Adams, 

Economic  Supremacy. 

Aristotle, 
Politics. 

Augustine, 

City  of  God. 

Bacon, 

New  Atlantis. 

Bakounin, 

God  and  the  State. 

Bascom, 

Sociology. 

Bax, 

Essays  in  Socialism. 

Ethics  of  Socialism. 

Religion  of  Socialism. 

Short  History  of  the  Commune. 

Universal  History  from  a  Socialist  Standpoint. 

Bax  and  Morris, 

Growth  and  Outcome  of  Socialism. 

Bebel, 

Glossen. 

301 


302  AUTHORITIES 

Usurle. 
Woman. 

Bellamy, 

Looking  Backward. 

Benham, 

Proletarian  Revolt. 

Bernstein, 

Evolutionary  Socialism. 
Lasalle  as  a  Social  Reformer. 

Blatchford, 

God  and  My  Neighbor. 
Industrial  Marriages. 
Merrie  England. 
Not  Guilty  (a  Novel). 

Bliss, 

Encyclopedia  of  Social  Reforms. 

Blassard, 

The  Ethics  of  Usury  and  Interest. 

Bohn  and  Haywood, 
Industrial  Socialism. 

Brinton, 

The  Basis  of  Social  Relations. 

Brooks, 

Social  Unrest. 

Brown, 

The  Advance. 

The  Social  Crusader,  July,  1901. 

Socialism  and  Primitive  Christianity. 

Buckle, 

History  of  Civilisation. 


AUTHORITIES  303 

Burrowes, 

International  Socialist  Review,  Jan.,  1902. 
Campenella, 

City  of  the  Sun. 

Carlyle, 

French  Revolution. 

Cicero, 

Republic. 

Clark, 

The  Distribution  of  Wealth. 

Clodd, 

Childhood  of  the  World. 

Cunningham, 

Modern  Civilisation — Its  Economic  Aspects. 
Daily  Socialist  (Chicago),  May  4,  1900. 

Dante, 

Monarchy  Daily  People,  June  5,  1905. 

Davidson, 

The  Annals  of  Toil. 
Dawson, 

Lasalle  and  German  Socialism. 

Bismarck  and  State. 

Debs, 

International  Socialist  Review,  Jan.,  1912. 

International  Socialist  Review,  Feb.,  1912. 

Life  Writings  and  Speeches. 
DeTunzlemann, 

The  Superstition  Called  Socialism. 

DeMorgan, 

Budget  of  Paradoxes. 


304  AUTHORITIES 

Deville, 

Socialism,  Revolution  and  Internationalism. 
Deville, 

State  and  Socialism. 

Dietzgen, 

Outcome  of  Philosophy. 
Philosophical  Essays. 

Draper, 

The  European  Age  of  Faith. 

Eltzbacher, 

Anarchism. 
Ely, 

Political  Economy. 

Socialism  in  Modern  Times. 

Socialism  and  Social  Reform. 

Erfurt  Program  (Adopted  at  Erfurt,  1891,  a  revision  of  the 
Gotha  Program). 

Engels, 

Duerhing. 

Feuerbach. 

Origin  of  the  Family,  the  State  and  Private  Property. 

Socialism  Utopian  and  Scientific. 

Speech  at  Grave  of  Marx. 

Ferri, 

Socialism  and  Modern  Science. 

Fiske, 

Destiny  of  Man. 

Outline  of  Cosmic  Philosophy. 

The  Idea  of  God. 

Flint, 

Socialism. 


AUTHORITIES  305 

Franklin, 

Socialisation  of  Humanity,  International  Socialist  Re- 
view, Nov.,  1904. 

Ghent, 

Mass  and  Class. 

Gibbens, 

Industry  in  England. 

Gilman, 

Woman  and  Economics. 
Godwin, 

Political  Justice. 

Golstein, 

Socialism. 

Gotha  Program  (adopted  1875  over  protest  of  Marx  to  cer- 
tain particulars  which  were  changed  to  meet  his  views  in 
the  Erfurt  Program). 

Graham, 

Socialism  New  and  Old. 

Guides, 

Political  Economy. 

Guizot, 

History  of  England. 
Memoirs. 

Gumplowicz, 

Outlines  of  Sociology. 

Guthrie, 

Socialism  before  the  French  Revolution. 

Hadley, 

Economics. 


306  AUTHORITIES 

Hale, 

Man  Without  a  Country. 

Harrington, 
Oceana. 

Haywood, 

"  Cooper  Union  Speech,"  International  Socialist  Review, 
Feb.,  1902. 

Haywood  and  Bohn, 
Industrial  Socialism. 

Hegel, 

Philosophy  of  History. 

Herron, 

International  Socialist  Review,  Jan.,  1901. 

Appeal  to  Reason,  May  16,  1903. 

Metropolitan,  May,  1903. 

Metropolitan,  Aug.,  1913. 

Revolution  to  Revolution. 

The  Socialist  Spirit,  Jan.,  1903. 

The  Workers,  March,  1902. 

The  Wage  Slave,  July,  1908. 

Why  I  Am  a  Socialist. 
Hillis, 

A  Man's  Value  to  Society. 
Hillquit, 

Socialism  in  Theory  and  Practice. 

Socialism  Summed  Up. 

History  of  Socialism  in  United  States. 
Hinds, 

American  Communities. 
Hobbes, 

Leviathan. 


AUTHORITIES  307 

Homer, 

Odyssey. 

Hopkins, 

Wealth  and  Waste. 

Hunter, 

Poverty. 

Hughan, 

American  Socialism  of  the  Present  Day. 

Hyndman, 

Historical  Basis  of  Socialism. 
Economics  of  Socialism. 
Socialism  and  Society. 

Jaures, 

Studies  in  Socialism. 

Jenks, 

Great  Fortunes. 

Jenons, 

Theory  of  Political  Economy. 

Kauffman, 

What  Is  Socialism? 

Kautsky, 

Communism  in  Central  Europe. 

Die  Neue  Zeit,  Oct.  27,  1911. 

Ethics  and  the  Materialistic  Conception  of  History. 

Road  to  Power. 

Social  Revolution. 

The  Social  Revolution. 

Kelly, 

Twentieth  Century  Socialism. 


308  AUTHORITIES 

Kerr, 

Folly  of  Being  Good. 
Morals  and  Socialism. 

Kidd, 

Social  Evolution. 

Kirkup, 

A  History  of  Socialism. 

Kohler, 

Social  Democracy. 

Kropotkin, 

Field,  Factories  and  Workshops. 
Memoirs  of  a  Revolutionist. 
Mutual  Aid. 
The  Conquest  of  Brand. 

Labriola, 

Materialistic  Conception  of  History. 

Ladoff, 

International  Socialist  Review,  Feb.,  1905. 
International  Socialist  Review,  June,  1908. 
The  Passing  of  Capitalism. 

La  f  argue, 

Evolution  of  Private  Property. 
Evolution  of  Property. 
Right  to  be  Lazy. 
Philosophic  Studies. 

LaMonte, 

International  Socialist  Review,  Feb.,  1912. 

Man  vs.  The  Man   (Published  correspondence  between 

LaMonte  and  H.  L.  Mencker,  non-Socialist). 
Socialism,  Positive  and  Negative. 


AUTHORITIES  309 


Lambert, 

Notes  on  Ingersoll. 

Lassalle, 

Science  and  the  Workingman. 
The  Workingman's  Programme. 

Laughline, 

Political  Economy. 

Lavelleye, 

Socialism  of  To-day. 

Leatham, 

Socialism  and  Character. 

Lecky, 

Democracy  and  Liberty. 

History  of  Rationalism  in  Europe. 

Leo  XIII, 

Immortali  Deo  (Encyclical). 

Le  Rossingol, 

Orthodox  Socialism. 

Lewis, 

The  Militant  Proletariat. 
Evolution:  Social  and  Organic. 

Liebkeenncht, 

No  Compromise. 
Karl  Marx. 
Socialism. 

Locke, 

Civil  Government. 

Loria, 

Economic  Foundation  of  Society. 


310  AUTHORITIES 

London, 

Address  to  the  Yale  Students,  1906. 
Iron  Heel  (a  Novel). 

MacDonald, 

Socialism  and  Positive  Science. 

Mackenzie, 

Introduction  to  Social  Philosophy. 

Maine, 

Ancient  Law. 

Mallock, 

A  Critical  Examination  of  Socialism. 
The  Case  Against  Socialism. 

Mann, 

Import  and  Outlook  of  Socialism. 
Marshall, 

Present  Position  of  Economics. 

Principles  of  Economics. 

Marx, 

Capital. 

Critique  of  Political  Economy. 

The  Holy  Family. 

The  Poverty  of  Philosophy. 

Value,  Price  and  Profit. 

Wage-Labor  and  Capital. 

Massart  and  Vandervelde, 

Parasitism  Organic  and  Social. 

Menger, 

The  Right  to  the  Whole  Product  of  Labor. 

Mills, 

Political  Economy. 


AUTHORITIES  311 


More, 

Utopia. 

Morelly, 

Basiliade. 

Code  de  la  Nature. 

Morgan, 

Ancient  Society. 

Morris, 

Useful  Work  vs.  Useless  Toil. 
News  from  Nowhere  (a  Novel). 

Morris  and  Bax, 

Growth  and  Outcome  of  Socialism. 

Most, 

Freheit. 

O'Neal, 

The  Worker,  Dec.  2,  1905. 

Osborne, 

Principles  of  Economics. 

Owen, 

A  New  View  of  Society. 

Parce, 

Economic  Interpretation  of  History. 
Lessons  in  Economics. 

Paulsen, 

A  System  of  Ethics. 

Plato, 

Critics. 

Law. 

Protagoras. 

Republic. 


312  AUTHORITIES 

Timceus. 

The  Statesman. 

Plechanoff, 

Anarchy  and  Socialism. 

Plutarch, 

Lycurgus. 

Proudhon, 

What  Is  Property? 

Rae, 

Contemporary  Socialism. 

Reeve, 

The  Cost  of  Competition. 

Ricardo, 

Principles  of  Political  Economy. 

Richardson, 

Industrial  Problems. 

Rogers, 

Economic  Interpretation  of  History. 
Six  Centuries  of  Work  and  Wages. 
Work  and  Wages. 

Rousseau, 

The  Social  Contract. 

Ruskin, 

Political  Economy  and  Art. 
Unto  This  Last. 

Saures, 

Defensio  Fidei. 


AUTHORITIES  313 

Schaeffle, 

The  Quintessence  of  Socialism. 

The  Impossibility  of  Social  Democracy. 

Seligman, 

The  Economic  Interpretation  of  History. 

Shaw, 

Municipal  Government  in  Continental  Europe. 

Simon, 

International  Socialist  Review,  Dec.,  1900. 
International  Socialist  Review,  June,  1904. 
Philosophy  of  Socialism. 
Socialism  and  Anarchism. 

Skelton, 

Socialism;  A  Critical  Analysis. 

Smith, 

Wealth  of  Nations. 

Socialist  Campaign  Book,  1908,  also,  1912. 

Socialist  Democrat,  Aug.  15,  1903. 

Social  Democrat  of  Milwaukee,  Oct.  12,  1904. 

Sombart, 

Socialism  and  the  Social  Movement  in  the  Nineteenth 
Century. 

Spargo, 

Appeal  to  Reason,  May  16,  1903. 
Bitter  Cry  of  the  Children. 
Common  Sense  of  Socialism. 
His  Life  and  Work. 
Socialism. 

The  Comrade,  May,  1903. 

The  Socialists,  Who  They  Are  and  What  They  Stand 
For. 


The  Substance  of  Socialism. 
Where  IV e  Stand. 

Sprague, 

Socialism  from  Genesis  to  Revelation. 

Stern, 

"Thesen." 

Stoddart, 

The  New  Socialism. 

Strobell, 

A  Christian  View  of  Socialism. 

The  Call,  March  15,  1909. 

The  Call,  March  2,  1911. 

The  Chicago  Socialist,  July  n,  1903. 

The  Commonweal,  Vol.  4,  No.  137. 

The  People,  Feb.  8,  1900. 

The  Social  Democrat,  March  15,  1903. 

Thompson, 

Constructive  Programme  of  Socialism. 
Inquiry  into  Distribution  of  Wealth. 

Tolstoi, 

My  Confession. 
What  to  Do. 

Towler, 

Socialism  and  Social  Government. 

Tucker, 

Instead  of  a  Book. 

Uhlhorn, 

Christian  Charity  in  the  Ancient  Church. 


AUTHORITIES  315 


Untermann, 

International  Socialist  Review,  Aug.,  1904. 
Science  and  Revolution. 

Vail, 

Principles  of  Scientific  Socialism. 
Socialist  Movement. 

Veblen, 

Theory  of  Business  Enterprise. 

Villiers, 

The  Socialist  Movement  in  England. 
Volkszeitung,  Sept.  9,  1901. 

Walker, 

Land  and  Its  Rent. 

Walling, 

Socialism  as  It  Is. 

Ward, 

Dynamic  Sociology. 
Pure  Sociology. 

Webb, 

Problems  of  Modern  Industry. 
Industrial  Democracy. 

Wells, 

Socialist  Democracy  (The  Great  State). 
New  Worlds  of  Old. 

Wilson, 

The  Menace  of  Socialism. 

Wiltshire, 

Why  a  Woman  Should  Be  a  Socialist. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Ability,  directive,  how  judged, 

275 
Abrogation  of  capital,  Socialist 

aim,  12 
Abolition    of   profits,    Socialist 

platform,   14 

Achievement  of  French  Revo- 
lution, lack  of,  181 
A    classless    society,    Socialis- 

dom,  119 

Aim  of  Competition,  269 
Aim  of   Socialism,  as  an  eco- 
nomic movement,  246 
as  a  political  movement,  229 
as  a  thought  movement,  219 
in  economics,  12 
in  Morals,  226 
in   Philosophy,  219 
in  Religion,  223 
Alliance  of  passions  of  unrest, 

172 

Analysis   of  Socialist   Philoso- 
phy, 46 

Ancient  laws,   100 
Ancient  states,  101 
Antagonisms  of  society,  123 
Aristotle  and  Plato,  compared, 

139 
Artificial    and    natural     social 

classes,  117 
"  Atlantis,"  102 

As  conspirators,  Socialists,  106 
Attitude   of    Socialism   toward 

State,  93 

Attitude  of  Socialist  Party,  to- 
ward labor  unions,  211 
toward  religion,  212 
toward  use  of  violence,  214 


Atheism  of  Socialism,  49 

Atheism,  spread  of,  166 

Atheists,  99  per  cent.  Socialists 
are,  50 

Anthropology,  32 

Authority  and  power  distin- 
guished, 88 

Authority,  source  of,  87 

Aveling's  tour  of  United  States, 
207 

Back-to-the-brute  Aim  of  So- 
cialism, 224 

Bakounin,  Socialist  "  insur- 
gent," 190 

Basis  of  Civilization,  unification 
not  conflict,  24 

Basis  of  exchange,  real,  15 
in  Socialist  economics,  16 

Basis,  of  living  wage,  281 
of  Morality,  70 

"  Beautiful "  revolutionary  tem- 
perament, 109 

Bebel's  division  of  labor,  257 

Bellamy's  division  of  labor,  258 

Bernstein,  leader  of  Revision- 
ists, 158 

Biology,  32 

Bismarck  and  Leo  XIII,  287 

Bitterness  of  Socialists  toward 
Christianity,  58 

Bond  of  Socialists  is  Sentiment, 
162 

"  Brazil "  of  ancient  lore,   102 

Breton  city  of  Is,  102 


Campenella    and    More,    com- 
pared, 146 


319 


320 


INDEX 


Campenella    and    Plato,    com- 
pared, 146 
Capital,  defined,  24 
fixed  and  mobile,  interest  on, 

282 
necessity    of    conserving    by 

due  return,  24 
Capitalists  all  workers,  296 
Cause  of  business  failures,  268 
Charity,  in  social  life,  186 
necessity  for,  25 
obligation  to  do,  286 
Charondas,  135 

Christian  ideals,  how  weak- 
ened, 166 

Christian  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse, 36 

Christianity  and  Socialism  con- 
trasted, 63 

Christianity  held  "  servile,"  55 
Church-land  insurrection,  183 
Civil  authority,  defined,  87 
Civil  Law,  defined,  100 
Civil  power,  source  of,  91 
Civilization,        its        necessary 

norms,  25 

Class-conscious  doctrine,  119 
Class-consciousness,        defined, 

119 

Classes  in  Society,  116 
Classes,    none    in    Socialisdom, 

IOO 

Class-Struggle,  defined,  10 
its  history,   II 
its  promise,  12 
Coherency  of  Socialist  thought 

fatal,  14 

Collective   operation  of   indus- 
try, 254 
Collective   Ownership,   defined, 

13 

Commands  of  Moral  law  (So- 
cialist), 82 

Comment  on  Methods  of  ac- 
quisition proposed,  251 

Commodity,  what  is,  3 

Communism  of  Plato,  136 


Communities    of    Socialists    in 

United  States,  203 
Competition,  a  curse  (Socialist 

theory),  26 
an  economic  law,  276 
norm  of  civilization,  25 
operation  of,  268 
regulates  demand,  272 
Competitive   method   of   public 

acquisition,  247 
Conclusion  and  summary,  291 
Confiscation   method  of   public 

acquisition,  246 

Conflict  between  capital  and  la- 
bor, Socialist  theory,  u 
Conspirators,      Socialists     are, 

when,  106 
Content  of  Socialist  philosophy, 

30 

Contrast  in  effects  of  Christian- 
ity and  Socialism,  65 
Contrast  of  Socialism,  with  nat- 
ural religion,  60 
with  supernatural,  61 
with  Christianity,  63 
Cosmology,  32 
Craft  Guilds,  153 
Creation,  in  light  of  science,  37 
Criticism  of  Socialist  Aims,  232 

Darwinism,  29 

Debs,  Eugene  V.,  leader  of  So- 
cialists in  United  States, 
209 

Definitions  of  Socialism,  iii 

De  Leon,  leader  of  Socialist  La- 
bor Party,  208 

Demand  as  regulated,  by  desire, 

274 
by  competition,  272 

Democracy  of  suffering,  164 

Description   of    Platonic   ideal, 

137 

Dialectic  —  Materialistic  —  Mo- 
nism, 47 

Dialectic  Method  in  philosophy, 
27 


INDEX 


321 


Direction  of  Labor  in  Socialis- 
dom,  263 

Directivity  in  industry,  neces- 
sity for,  263 
how  judged,  264 

Discontent,   as   a  social   force, 

163 

growth  of,  164 
philosophy  of,  166 

Discontented  classes,  Socialism 
asylum  for,  125 

Distribution  of  Goods,  170 

Dividends,  how  produced,  284 

Division  of   labor  in   Socialis- 
dom,  256 

Doctrine  of  class-consciousness, 
121 

Doctrine  of  envy,  128 

Dreams  of  Socialists,  in 


Early  Syndicalism  in  England, 

185. 

Economic  aim  of  Socialism,  254 
Economic  determinism,  denned, 

40 
Economic      Interpretation      of 

History,  45 
Economic    theories    of    Marx, 

source,  153 
Efficiency,  how  determined,  268 

test  of,  276 

Elizabethan  Poor  Laws,  153 
Enclosure  acts  of  England,  163 
End  of  Man,  Christian  concept, 

70 

Socialist  concept,  71 
England,    Socialist    parties    in, 

198 

Envy  a  Socialist  sentiment,  128 
Envy  as  a  social  force,  169 
Epitome,    of    Marxian    philos- 
ophy, 32 
of  Socialist  view  of  history, 

230 
Equivalents      only     exchanged 

(Socialist  theory),  3 


Equivalents    never    exchanged 
(true  theory),  15 

Error  judged  by  truth,  71 

Ethics,  defined,  67 
distinguished     from    morals, 
67 

Evolution,  Hegel's  teaching  of, 
27 

Evolution     of    man,     Socialist 
teaching,  40 

Evolution,  represented  by  spiral 
(?.),  30 

Evolutionary  materialistic  mon- 
ism, 32 

Excesses  of  French  Revolution, 
179 

Exchange  Characteristic,  what 
is,  i 

Exchange,  real  basis  of,  15 
Socialist  basis  of,  16 

Extinction    of    capitalists,    So- 
cialist aim,  12 


Fabian  Society,  199 
Factories,  what  to  be  socialized, 

245 
Failures  in  business,  cause  of, 

268 

Family  in  Socialism,  234 
Fanciful  visions  of   Socialists, 

255 

Fatalism  of  Socialist  philos- 
ophy, 70 

Favoritism  or  Communism,  270 

Feuerbach,  materialist,  30 

First  principles  denied  by  So- 
cialist philosophy,  29 

Forbearance  a  virtue  of  slav- 
ery, 55 

Force  without  law,  100 

Foreign  sentiment  among  So- 
cialists, 175 

Freedom  of  speech  and  press, 
not  Socialistic,  162 

Free  love  in  Socialism,  84 


322 


INDEX 


Free  Will  a  condition  of  moral- 
ity, 68 

denied  by  Socialists,  67 
French  Revolution,  first  stage, 

178 

lack  of  achievement  of,  181 
Proletarian  stage,  179 

Genesis,  in  light  of  science,  37 
German  Socialist  parties,  193 
God  alone  Unlimited,  112 
Godlessness  of  Socialism,  49 
Goodness    and    Morality    dis- 
tinguished, 68 

Goods,  Distribution  of,  270 
Gorky's  tour  of  United  States, 

210 

Gratuitous  service,  defined,  6 
Greed  as  a  social  force,  169 
Growth  of  Socialist  Sentiment, 

163 
Guilds  of  Middle  Ages,  153 

Hardie,  Keir,  labor  leader,  199 
Harrington,   as    foreshadowing 

Socialist  Idea,  150 
as  suggesting  "  Land  Nation- 
alization," 149 
"  Single  Tax,"  149 
compared    with    More    and 

Plato,  148 

Haves  and  Have-Nots,  173 
Hegel,  philosophy  of,  27 
Heritage   of    civilization    from 
the  French  Revolution,  169 
Herron-Rand  affair,  210 
Hippodamus,  135 
Historical  Materialism,  45 
History,    of    national    Socialist 

parties,  193 

of  human  race,  Socialist,  41 
of  "  The  International,"  188 
of  Paris  Commune,  189 
of  Socialist  Movement,  178 
of  Socialist  Sentiment,  163 
History,    Socialist   division   of, 
42 


How  Competition  regulates  ef- 
ficiency, 268 

How  labor  will  be  divided  in 
Socialisdom,  256 

How  Socialists  define  religion, 

59 

How  Socialists  war  on  society, 

231 
How  the  public  will  acquire  the 

property   to    be    socialized, 

246 
How   will   labor  be   directed?, 

263 
Human    nature,    Socialists    do 

not  change,  xii 
Humanitarianism,  52 
Humility  a  virtue   of  slavery, 

55 

Idea  of  Socialism  (Scientific), 

151 

Ideal  politic,  The,  102 

Idealism  rejected  by  Socialists, 
29 

Impossible  and  impracticable 
distinguished,  xiii 

Inconsistency  of  Socialists,  227 

Individual  accountability  de- 
nied, 70 

Individual  needs,  how  deter- 
mined, 274 

Industry,  how  operated  in  So- 
cialisdom, 254 

Interference  of  State  in  regu- 
lating wages,  284 

International,  The,  history  of, 
188 

"  Is,"  lost  Breton  city,  102 

Justice  in  Social  Life,  286 
Justice,  norm  of  civilization,  25 

Kant,  disputed  first  principles, 

28 
Kinds  of  Socialism,  viii 

Labor,  defined,  24 
determined  value,  3 


INDEX 


323 


Labor,  direction  of  in  socialis- 

dpm,  263 
division    of    in    socialisdom, 

256 

how  much  required  for  pro- 
duction, 17 

includes  manual  labor,  5 
excludes  "  waste  "  labor   (q. 

v.),  5 

excludes  "  gratuitous  "  serv- 
ice (q.  v.),  5. 

Labor-power,  cost  of  produc- 
ing, 19 

distinguished  from  labor,  6 
Labor,  social  defined,  5 
Labor-units  of  skilled  and  un- 
skilled compared,  7 
Lassalle,     founder     Working- 
man's    Party     (Germany), 

193 

Land  Nationalization  (Wal- 
lace), suggested  by  Har- 
rington, 149 

Land,  what  to  be  socialized,  243 

Law,  none  in  Socialisdom,  100 

Law  without  force,  100 

Lawlessness,  as  a  social  force, 
169 

Lawlessness  of  Socialist  lead- 
ers, 105 

Loyalty,  102 

Leo  XIII  and  Bismarck,  287 

Liebknecht's  tour  of  United 
States,  207 

Luddites,  destroyers  of  ma- 
chinery, 187 

Limitations  of  man,  112 

Limitlessness  of  the  Limitator, 
112 

Living  wage,  basis  of,  280 

Lycurgus,  135 

Machinery,  its  part  in  produc- 
tion, 17 

early  destruction  of,  185 
what  to  be  socialized,  245  ^ 

Many  Kinds  of  Socialism,  viii 


Man's  relation  to  society,  91 
Marx  and  More,  compared,  151 
Marx,  career  from  1841  to  1864, 

186 

Marx's  theories,  source,  154 
Marxian  Darwinism,  40 
Marxian  formula  of  value,  3 
Materialism  of  Feuerbach,  30 
Materialistic  conception  of  His- 
tory, 45 
Maximum       interest, —  rent, — 

wage,  281 

Meekness  a  virtue  of  slavery,  55 
Metayer  system,  282 
Method,    of    Socialist    philos- 
ophy, 27 

of  Hegelian  School,  27 
Methods,  of  propaganda,  Marx- 
ian, 156 

pre-Marxian,  155 
Methods,   Socialist,  of  acquir- 
ing our  industries,  246 
Competition,  247 
Confiscation,  246 
Pension,  248 
Purchase,  250 

Middle  Age  Craft  Guilds,  ix 
Mills,    what   to    be    socialized, 

245 
Mines,  what  to  be   socialized, 

243 

Minimum  wage,  281 
Misfortune's    appeal    to    man- 
kind, 164 
Modification  of  Socialist  Idea, 

160 

Monism,  evolutionary  material- 
istic, 32 

Monistic  Materialism,  30 
Moral  basis  impossible  without 

God,  68 

Moral  ideas  not  fixed   (Social- 
ist view),  76 

Moral  Law  of  Socialism,  81 
Moral   principle   of   Socialism, 

67 
Morality,  basis  of,  70 


324 


INDEX 


Morality,     distinguished     from 

goodness,  68 
impossible  without  free  will, 

68 
Morality,    of    future    Society, 

(Socialist  view),  82 
of    past    Society     (Socialist 

view),  77 
of  present  Society  (Socialist 

view),  75 
Morality,   Socialist  concept  of, 

73 

Morals      distinguished      from 
ethics,  67 

More    and    Campanella,    com- 
pared, 146 

More  and  Plato,  compared,  144 

More,    Harrington    and    Plato, 
148 

More  and  Marx,  compared,  151 

Most,  John,   organized   second 
"  International,"  192 

Movement  of  Socialism,  178 
in  Germany,  193 
in  England,   198 

Murder  in  Socialism,  84 

National  Parties,  Socialist,  193 
Natural    and    artificial    social 

classes,  117 
Natural  religion,  60 
Natural   rights   denied  by   So- 
cialists, 75 

Necessity  for  charity,  286 
Necessity  for  direction  of  la- 
bor, 263 

Needs  of  individuals,  274 
Needs  of  Society,  270 
Nihilism  as  a  social  force,  175 
Nineteenth   Century  evolution- 
ism, 33 

Ninety-nine  per  cent,  of  Social- 
ists atheists,  50 

Objective  of  competition,  277 
Object  of  "The  International," 
187 


Objections,    to    Socialist    eco- 
nomics, 15 

to  Socialist  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse, 35 

Oceana,  described,  252 
Operation  of  Industry,  254 
Operation  of   State-owned   in- 
dustries, 269 

Opportunist  Socialists,  160 
Ownership  and  operation,  dif- 
ference, 254 

Ownership,   collective,   aim   of 
Socialist  economics,  12 

Panic,  of  1873,  205 
of  1893,  209 

Paradise  of   Socialists   in  this 
world,  65 

Parable  of  The  Master  and  His 
Vineyard,  131 

Paradox  of  Marx's  explanation 
of  profits,  vii 

Paris  Commune,  107 

Pension  method  of  public  ac- 
quisition, 248 

Philolaus,  135 

Philosophy       of        Socialism, 

method,  27 

opposed  to  free  will,  68 
summary  of,  46 

Plato,  135 

Plato  and  revelation,  142 

Plato,  The  Radical,  140 

Plato's  admission  of  impracti- 
cability, 138 

Plato's  difficulty  with  truth,  141 

Plato  and  Aristotle,  compared, 

139 

Plato  and  More,  compared,  144 
Plato,   More   and    Harrington, 

148 

Platonic  idea  in  Socialism,  135 
Platonic  view  of  society,  136 
Pliny's  ecstasy  (Oceana},  149 
Plug  Riots  (of  England),  185 
Political  perfection,  102 
Political  principle,  87 


INDEX 


325 


Political  theories  of  Marx, 
source,  154 

Poor  laws  (Elizabethan),  153 

Power  and  Authority  distin- 
guished, 91 

Practical  Socialism,  lack  of 
Idea  in,  161 

Press,  freedom  of  not  a  So- 
cialist doctrine,  161 

Printing,  a  help  to  Discontent, 
163 

Private  property,  necessity  for, 

25 

Problem  of  social  justice,  285 

Product,  what  is,  3 

Profits,  how  produced,  283 

Progress  in  society,  xviii 

Proletarian  class,  defined,  123 

Proletariat  and  Socialism  in- 
separable, 120 

Promise  of  Socialism,  116 

Property,  a  crime  (Socialist 
economics),  26 

Property  the  public  should  own, 
238 

Property,  what  to  be  socialized, 
238 

Public  acquisition  of  property, 

246 

by  Competition,  247 
by  Confiscation,  246 
by  Pension,  242 
by  Purchase,  250 

Public  operation  of  industry, 
169 

Public  ownership,  what  it  in- 
cludes, 238 

Purchase  method  of  public  ac- 
quisition, 250 

Purity  and  Socialism,  84 

Radicalism    of    i8th    Century, 

166 
Railroads,  what  to  be  socialized, 

244 

Reconstruction  as  a  Socialist 
aim,  236 


Reign  of  Terror,  180 

Relations  of  sexes  in  Socialism, 
84 

Refutation  of  Socialist  eco- 
nomics, 294 

Refutation  of  Socialist  theories, 

15 

Religion,  as  a  civilizing  force, 

168 

as  a  bar  to  civilization,  55 
as  a  "  servile  "  institution,  55 

Religion  and  Socialism  Con- 
trasted, 60 

Religion,  defined,  49 

Religion  devised  by  capitalists, 
54 

Religion  only  chloroforms 
workers,  55 

Religious  principle  of  Social- 
ism, 49 

Rent-usury,  282 

Requirements  of  Charity,  286 

Revealed  (supernatural)  re- 
ligion, 61 

Revisionist  Socialists,  158 

Revisionism    merely    negative, 

159 
Revolution  as  a  Socialist  aim, 

229 

Revolution  of  1830,  184 
Revolution,  French,  178 
Right  to  Labor  (Marx),  153 
Right     to     Labor      (Turgot), 

281 
Right  to  Subsistence   (Marx), 

153 
Right  to  Subsistence  (Morelly, 

etc.),  281 

Right  to  Whole  Produce  of  La- 
bor, 154 

Robbery  of   Workingmen,   the 

means,  10 
the  system,  292 

Root  fallacy  of  Socialist  eco- 
nomics, 15 

Root  of  Socialist  Philosophy, 
value,  3 


326 


INDEX 


Sacrifice  of  Christian  and  So- 
cialist compared,  66 
Sacrifice,  motive  of,  66 
Scientific    truth    of    Creation, 

38 

Sentiment  the  bond  of  Social- 
ists, 162 

Sentiments  of  Socialists  that 
are  foreign  to  Socialism, 

175 
Sexual  Morality  in  Socialism, 

84 

Share-renting,  282 
Single  Tax  (George)  suggested 

by  Harrington,  149 
Skilled  labor,  not  reckoned  by 

Socialists,  6 

Speech,  freedom  of  not  a  So- 
cialist doctrine,  176 
Sobriety  in  Socialism,  88 
Social  Classes,  116 
Social  interests  determine  mo- 
rality, 74 

Social  justice,  problem  of,  285 
Social  Labor,  defined,  3 
Socialisdom,  defined,  xii 

described,  ill 
Socialism,  atheistic,  49 

atheistic  humanism,  52 

a  revolution,  not  a  reform,  ix 

essential  aims  of,  xiv 

in  England,  201 

in  France,  201 

in  Germany,  201 

in  United  States,  203 

leads  to  atheism,  50 

malicious  toward  religion,  57 

intends  to  root  out  God,  50 

is  practically  impossible,  xvi 

suggested  in  Utopia,  145 

"  Summed  up,"  v 

the  Nihilism  of,  xv 

varieties  of,  viii 

what  is,  iii 
Socialism,    would    destroy    the 

State,  96 
Socialist  abundance,  255 


Socialist        Communities        in 

United  States,  203 
Socialist  concept,  of  Man's  end, 

71 

of  Morality,  73 

Socialist     definitions,     of     Re- 
ligion, 59 

of  State,  93 
Socialist      "  dyed-in-the-wool," 

iv 
Socialist  "  election  expediency," 

iv 

Socialist  disrespect  for  law,  108 
Socialist  divisions  of  history,  42 
Socialist  dreams,  ill 
Socialist       economics       makes 

property  a  crime,  26 
Socialist  economics,  refuted,  15 

unjust,  18 
Socialist  Idea,  as  an  ideal,  150 

foreshadowed  by  Harrington, 

150 
Socialist  Idea   (Platonic),  137 

(Practical),  159 

(Utopian),  142 

present  tendency,  158 

(Scientific),  151 
Socialist  Lawlessness,  103 
Socialist  methods  of  acquiring 
our  industries,  246 

by  Competition,  247 

by  Confiscation,  246 

by  Pension,  248 

by  Purchase,  250 
Socialist  Moral  law,  as  to  wor- 
ship of  God,  83 

in  reference  to  theft,  83 

regarding  murder,  84 

touching  sex  relations,  84 
Socialist  Movement,   178 
Socialist  paradise  in  this  life,  65 
Socialist  parties,  of   Germany, 

193 

in  England,  198 
in  United  States,  213 
Socialist   Party  of  the  United 
States  formation,  210 


INDEX 


327 


Socialist  Party  of  the  U.  S.,  at- 
titude toward  labor  unions, 
211 

toward  religion,  212 
toward  use  of  violence,  214 
Socialist   philosophy,    analysed, 

46 

conformed  to  Hegelian  teach- 
ing, 28 

its  content,  30 
its  method,  27 
opposed  to  free  will,  68 
summarized,  46 

Socialist  proposals  a  contradic- 
tion, xiii 
Socialist    Sentiment,    analysed, 

163 

history  of,  163 
the  bond  of  Socialists,  162 
Socialist  tactics,  xvi 
Socialist  theory  of  the  universe, 

34 

Socialists        as        conspirators 
against  United  States,  106 
Socialists,  who  are,  viii 
Sociality,  denned,  114 
distinguished  from  Morality, 

114 

from  politics,  114 
Society  and  classes,  116 
Society,  an  organism  (Socialist 

view),  71 

Society  as  an  organism,  138 
Society  in  relation  to  man  (So- 
cialist view),  91 
Society,  needs  of,  271 
Society,  progress  of,  xvi 
Society,  Socialist  definition,  71 
Source,  of  Civil  Authority,  87 
of  Civil  power,  91 
of  Marxianism,  154 
of  Platonic  teaching,  135 
Spirit  of  1848,  173 
Spoliation  of  Church  lands,  183 
State-owned  industries,  opera- 
tion of,  269 


State  regulation  of  wages,  284 
State      Socialism,      conflicting 

views  on,  ix 
Statute  of  Laborers,  281 
Steamboats,  what  to  be  social- 
ized, 244 

"  Suicide  "  of  the  State,  96 
Suffering,   democracy   of,   164 
Summary  and  Conclusion,  291 
Summary   of    Socialist   philos- 
ophy, 46 

Supernatural  religion,  61 
Surplus-Value,  denned,  8 
equals    profits,    interest,    di- 
vided, rent,  7 

product  of  unpaid  labor,  7 
the    beginning    of    Socialist 

knowledge,  8 
Surplus-value    theory    a    mere 

bogey,  20 

Sylvis,    Wm.,   leader    National 
Labor  Union,  205 

Tactics,  of  Marx  and  Engles, 

156 
of     pre-Marxian     Socialists, 

155 
of  present-day  Socialists,  105 

Teaching  of  Plato,  135 

Telegraph  and  telephone  lines, 
what  to  be  socialized,  244 

Temperance  in  Socialism,  85 

Test  of  efficiency,  276 

Test  of  error,  71 

Test  of  Socialist  adherence,  ix 

The  collectivist  theory  a  fatal- 
ity, 25 

The  "  days  "  of  Creation,  37 

The  Limitator  of  the  universe, 

112 

The    law    and    a    law    distin- 
guished, no 
The  State,  91 

The  State  in  Socialisdom,  97 
The  State's  "  demise,"  96 
Theft  in  Socialism,  84 


328 


INDEX 


Theism  rejected  by  Socialists,  29 
Theist  concept  of  Man's  end,  70 
Theory  of  Class-consciousness, 

119 

Theory  of  Class-Struggle,  de- 
fined, 10 

the  motive  of  Socialist  propa- 
ganda, 12 
requires    the    extinction    of 

capitalists,   12 

necessitates    collective    own- 
ership (q.  v.),  12 
Theory   of    Collective   Owner- 
ship, 13 
Theory  of  Exchange  analysed, 

15 

Theory  of  the  Universe,  32 
Third  Estate  in  French  Revo- 
lution, 178 

Thiers  on  Robespierre,  180 
Thrift  in  Socialism,  85 
Truth  and  error,  test  of,  71 
Truth   in   its   own   objectivity, 

vi 
Truth  not  judged  by  error,  71 

Utopia,  142 

as  suggesting  Socialism,   145 
Utopian  Society,  143 
United   States,   Socialist   Com- 
munities in,  203 
Socialist  Parties  in,  203 
Unpaid  Labor,  source  of  sur- 
plus-value, 10 

Value,  root  of  Socialist  Philos- 
ophy, 3 

determined  by  labor,  3 
does  not  include  "  utility,"  3 


Value,  Marxian  formula  of, 
3 

Variation,  represented  by 
circle,  30 

Varieties  of  Socialism,  viii 

Visions  and  fancies  of  Social- 
ists, 255 

Vollmar,  leader  of  Revisionists, 
196 

Wages,  detriment  to  raise  (So' 

cialist  theory),  128 
Wage-usury,  282 
Wages,  not  a  just  reward  for 

labor,  ix 
increase   of   a   detriment   to 

workers,  ix 

Wages,  State  regulation  of,  284 
Waste-Labor,  defined,  5 
Well's      view      of       Socialist 

tyranny,  266 

What  are  necessities,  274 
What  is  Socialism,  iii 
What  is  not  Socialism,  x 
What  shall  the  public  own,  238 
What  Socialist  moral  does  not 

command,  83 
When  competition  is  right  and 

when  wrong,  278 
Whence  the  moral  law,  81 
Who  will  do  the  "  dirty  work," 

256 
Why  good  men  are  socialists, 

225 
Workers  all  capitalists,  296 

"Yom"    used    by    Moses    for 

"day,"  38 
"  Young  "  Socialists,  295 


UCSB   LIBRAKY. 


A     000658962     6 


